vie
quote:
Well what sort of limitations are you thinking of, It would depend a lot on exactly what sort of multiverse you are talking about, I had assumed that you meant something along the lines of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, is this not the case. In terms of the many world interpretation the the limitations would be defined by whatever the probability distribution of the initial start of the universe was.
Yes, quantum mechanics requires an infinite dimensional "Hilbert space".
General relativity breaks down at the singularity of "infinite" matter density.
If the multiverse is an infinite spacetime then it becomes probable for anything to exist, since in an infinite amount of time, anything that is possible, becomes probable.
Paul Davies explains how a multiverse is no different than the God concept.
http://aca.mq.edu.au/...ultiverse_StanfordUniv_March2003.pdf
http://www.jefallbright.net/node/view/1252
quote:
At the same time, the multiverse theory also explains too much. Appealing to everything in general to explain something in particular is really no explanation at all. To a scientist, it is just as unsatisfying as simply declaring, "God made it that way!"
quote:
For all I know it may well be that the singularity, as a possible staring point, did have an infinite range of probable outcomes, but there is no reason to just assume that that is the case, which is what you do. Whatever physical laws governed the origin of multiverse would be what sets the limitations for the probability space the multiverse can explore. You may choose to believe that an intelligence organised those laws, but there seems to be no evidence to support that, and certanly none provided by your argument.
It appears that spontaneous symmetry breaking in the early universe, only works for infinite spaces; basically because in a finite space, there exists a finite probability for the multiplicity of differently oriented would-be vacua to tunnel into one another and thus, the true vacuum is actually a linear superposition of them all. More specifically, any observable transforming a non-trivial entity - under the symmetry, retains a zero vacuum expectation value.
For example, take the gauge boson mass generation via the Higgs mechanism.
So there is a compact space where the Higgs vacuum expectation value
vanishes, and hence, the gauge boson mass must apparently vanish also.
Ergo, it is abundantly clear that for a local theory, the compact space should be the harder to distinguish from infinite space, the larger and larger it gets with the caveat of empirical restriction to experiments for some fixed-finite volume of space. Much to our chagrin, the gauge bosons should acquire, or appear to acquire, mass, only at the infinite limit. Alas, the escape route, out of this dilemma would be to realize the true nonlinear aspect of the symmetry breaking process, which is inevitably a higher level of symmetry. Not necessarily being an infinite space
Spontaneous symmetry breaking entails randomness which itself is guided by the symmetry of a probability distribution.
Therefore we see that symmetry breaking itself is beholden to another [higher level of] symmetry.
Information in the Holographic Universe:
ILTE : Indiana University Southeast
The Universe is beholden TO the uncertainty principle, which is merely a form of the Cauchy Schwartz inequality, thus connected to the "triangle inequality", which is a property of the Riemannian metric, which is also perceived by the mind itself, since the metric properties of space can only be observed/described via perception.
If spontaneity is considered to be a characteristic feature of the
mind, then naturalism may consider it to be most problematical when
spontaneity is taken to be both intentional and acausal. We hope
against all hope that this apparently inevitable false dichotomy just cannot be. Yet quantum physics might still apply when indeterminism is taken into account. Indeterminism becomes a property of nature, which is a self referential logical loophole for the intervention of a nonphysical MIND.
quote:
This particular universe? The multiverse? Or just some universe somewhere in the manifold? As the other poster pointed out the thread which was closed, somewhere in the universe there may be entitities with the neccessary technology to produce new universes, does that make them gods? If humankind discovered how to initiate the development of a new universe would that mean that we were gods?
The hypothesis is for intelligent design, not for imaginary "gods".