So if I get it right, there can't be another you because there are too much particles (and possible interactions between them) in the universe.<p>Perhaps there isn't a universe where every particle is the same as in ours, but we could be just concerned about the particles our galaxy for example. I might be wrong, but I think it might be theoretically possible to have the same earth in a totally different universe.<p>What I find somewhat counter intuitive is that, the more particles there are, the less our chances are that another version of us exist, I would have said it makes the chances bigger, or at least in our own universe.
An interesting implication of the multiverse theory is that it provides an answer for how we ended up with a universe with just the right combinations of gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces. It's like the Goldilocks story -- tweak any of them to any other value and all matter would either repel into an nearly empty space or attract into one mass that would collapse under it's own density. There are other reasons for the multiverse theory, but under a theory of infinite multiverses, you would by definition create a universe where all the right combination of forces would come together to form our stars and planets -- including ones that can sustain life.
Even though the universe is (probably) infinite, this does of course not mean that it is infinitely repetitive.<p>Take for example the function y=x: even though the x-axis is infinite, no value of y occurs twice.<p>Also note that the argument can be made in time also. If time is infinite, events may occur repetitively indefinitely. But they may also not (for example, if the universe "crunches" and stays that way).
To me it seems the article is completely mixing up two multiverse theories - one is that there are several essentially completely independent universes separated in space (or time) and the other is that there is no collapse of the wave function but all the possibilities encoded in the wave function are actually real and therefore many universes are kind of overlaid at the same time in the same space and in each universe you observe the wave function collapsed to a different state. Did I get it wrong or the article?
I thought the whole implication of MWI is that every possibility does happen and universes are constantly splitting off. So there's an unlimited number of copies of you, some essentially identical, others experiencing inconceivable suffering or pleasure.
> we have every reason to believe there’s plenty more, and perhaps even infinitely more [Universe out there beyond the portion that’s accessible to us]<p>Which order of infinity do you mean when you say "infinitely more [space]" here? Aleph-One?<p>> we can extrapolate the Big Bang backwards to an arbitrarily hot, dense, expanding state, and what we find is that it didn’t get infinitely hot and dense early on<p>And what order of infinity here for the energy?<p>> the Universe was filled with energy inherent to space itself: a state that causes the Universe to expand at an exponential rate<p>If the infinity used to measure 2 different entities are of different orders, then there'd be at least an exponential differential between those entities. But what if the order of infinities is switched around between energy and space, could that then mean there's only one instance of inflated space in existence?<p>I've never read a discussion of multiverses, whether wrt inflation or quantum mechanics, where the order of infinity used is mentioned. Specifying what order of infinity is to be used for each measurement seems to be crucial to what result is infered.
><i>So realistically, we’re talking about at least 10^10^50 Universes that started off with initial conditions that might be very similar to our own.</i><p>Presumably, what follows from initial conditions is bound by determinism.<p>By the logic of that assumption, even if we assume an infinite set of initial conditions, can there really be alternate universes wherein everything is identical <i>except</i> for one miniscule thing, billions of years after initial conditions have unfolded?
I thought this clip [1] from a game was quite relevant.<p>[1] <a href="http://i.imgur.com/G5hXQ4C.gifv" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/G5hXQ4C.gifv</a>
A lot of more of the same 'Peek beyond the veil' of this reality type writing. Obviously a myopia exists on planet earth. Earth is a little bubble we have been floating in womb-like for aeons of years, and are aware, sometimes even at a very basic level that there's more out there. What I find awkward is that scale is seen as a scary thing. Space is often called a "final frontier", and the "last bastion of hope" and other scary things like that.<p>But you have to think of those first sailors who set out to discover the new worlds - they risked their lives - they were the original space monkeys. Sadly, ethical red tape won't allow a mass exodus to other stars - as the stock market would inevitably plunge, and there would be chaos.<p>The moment we get out of the tired economic model of scarcity, and start opting for abundance, is the moment we can leap towards other dimensions, and other worlds. But for now - we have an impotent attempt to understand the universe through a tired Hubble telescope, and a tired generation of rocket builders who read science fiction novels in secret and know there's another way out of this place.
Interesting that this article discusses the Big Bang as happening after Inflation. I always assumed Inflation was the initial stage of the Big Bang. Is that just assumed in casual descriptions, but technically not true?