Universes. Is one a sign of others?

[luckyme]

One implies more.
When I first run across a new (to me ) situation, entity, process, I tend to assume it isn't unique and that it's existence suggests others with related properties rather than it in the only example of that type in the universe.
Does such thinking apply to the universe I know itself. Having stumbled across this universe, it suggests to me that 'universes of some sort are possible', not 'boy, this is obviously the only one of this type of thing that could occur'.

Straighten me out.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

Absolutely, unless its a niche filler when existence prevents others then 1 indictaes the possibility of the many.

No reason to think universes aren't 10 a penny.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
One implies more.
When I first run across a new (to me ) situation, entity, process, I tend to assume it isn't unique and that it's existence suggests others with related properties rather than it in the only example of that type in the universe.
Does such thinking apply to the universe I know itself. Having stumbled across this universe, it suggests to me that 'universes of some sort are possible', not 'boy, this is obviously the only one of this type of thing that could occur'.

Straighten me out.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the reason you conclude there are other similar entities around when you bump into a previously unknown physical object or process is that you know that the universe has a few, simple rules which interact in various predictable and consistent ways to produce results. Given one object or process arising through the action of those laws, it seems sensible that the same laws will encounter a similar initial state in the large universe we see and so that similar entities will arise elsewhere.

I dont really have a view, but it may be that this induction isnt (yet) justified with regard to universes as at this stage we have no idea how the universe arose - perhaps it was from the action of predictable, consistent laws in some meta-universe, perhaps it is a brute fact which "just is" and which encapsulates all of existence. (Would you extend your analogy further? After concluding the likelihood of many universes in a meta-universe, does this suggest there are many meta-universes also?)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont really have a view, but it may be that this induction isnt (yet) justified with regard to universes as at this stage we have no idea how the universe arose - perhaps it was from the action of predictable, consistent laws in some meta-universe, perhaps it is a brute fact which "just is" and which encapsulates all of existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact I don't know the underlying cause of the situation, process or entity I've ran into doesn't seem to be a factor, perhaps because there is no evidence that I understand any of them at the base level.
It's more like this -- it's here, such a thing does exist ( cause unknown perhaps) so no reason to believe it's unique.

[ QUOTE ]
(Would you extend your analogy further? After concluding the likelihood of many universes in a meta-universe, does this suggest there are many meta-universes also?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any meta-universe to use as my base case. Iow, this universe existing leads me to 'other universe are possible', whether they exist in any multiverse sense is very much weaker on the chain.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact I don't know the underlying cause of the situation, process or entity I've ran into doesn't seem to be a factor, perhaps because there is no evidence that I understand any of them at the base level.
It's more like this -- it's here, such a thing does exist ( cause unknown perhaps) so no reason to believe it's unique.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm struggling to get it, but what I meant was that the fact you see no reason to believe some new thing is unique is because of the properties of the universe that the "thing" exists in. Our universe seems to be fundamentally simple laws acting on various initial states - this seems likely to generate lots of similar entities. Therefore when we see something knew we think "This process/object arose through the actions of the predictable, consistent laws of our universe. That means if a similar enough initial state should occur again, we will see a similar entity arise."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(Would you extend your analogy further? After concluding the likelihood of many universes in a meta-universe, does this suggest there are many meta-universes also?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any meta-universe to use as my base case. Iow, this universe existing leads me to 'other universe are possible', whether they exist in any multiverse sense is very much weaker on the chain.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
If they are possible, doesnt it imply there has to be a multiverse for them to exist in? I dont know what it would mean to suggest that there was nothing outside of our universe (ie no multiverse) and yet that other universes are possible.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If they are possible, doesnt it imply there has to be a multiverse for them to exist in? I dont know what it would mean to suggest that there was nothing outside of our universe (ie no multiverse) and yet that other universes are possible.


[/ QUOTE ]
could be a multiverse is just a universe. There was talk of creating a universe in a lab, that would presumably be within this universe in some sense.

as long as its possible in theory for us to create universes then doesn't that measn that universes are nothing particularly special?

chez

[Metric]

And yet, if we had reason to believe there were 14 of them, we'd probably say "Why 14? I bet there's a way in which they can all be thought of as the same universe." At least, that's been the tendancy in particle physics.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
could be a multiverse is just a universe. There was talk of creating a universe in a lab, that would presumably be within this universe in some sense.

as long as its possible in theory for us to create universes then doesn't that measn that universes are nothing particularly special?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it's definitional. I dont understand universe to include some subset of this universe (I dont even understand what "universe in a lab" means, it just seems a smaller part of our universe).

I thought luckyme was referring to other things like our physical universe but with, perhaps, differing physical laws - I dont see how it would be possible to create something within a laboratory which had a force of gravity proportional to the cube of the distance, for example. Nonetheless, if other universes are possible, perhaps one could exist which had this property (Not that it would be very interesting imo).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
could be a multiverse is just a universe. There was talk of creating a universe in a lab, that would presumably be within this universe in some sense.

as long as its possible in theory for us to create universes then doesn't that measn that universes are nothing particularly special?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it's definitional. I dont understand universe to include some subset of this universe (I dont even understand what "universe in a lab" means, it just seems a smaller part of our universe).

I thought luckyme was referring to other things like our physical universe but with, perhaps, differing physical laws - I dont see how it would be possible to create something within a laboratory which had a force of gravity proportional to the cube of the distance, for example. Nonetheless, if other universes are possible, perhaps one could exist which had this property (Not that it would be very interesting imo).

[/ QUOTE ]
this sort of thing

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
could be a multiverse is just a universe. There was talk of creating a universe in a lab, that would presumably be within this universe in some sense.

as long as its possible in theory for us to create universes then doesn't that measn that universes are nothing particularly special?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it's definitional. I dont understand universe to include some subset of this universe (I dont even understand what "universe in a lab" means, it just seems a smaller part of our universe).

I thought luckyme was referring to other things like our physical universe but with, perhaps, differing physical laws - I dont see how it would be possible to create something within a laboratory which had a force of gravity proportional to the cube of the distance, for example. Nonetheless, if other universes are possible, perhaps one could exist which had this property (Not that it would be very interesting imo).

[/ QUOTE ]
this sort of thing

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
*shrug* If the laws of this "pocket universe" are necessarily the same as the laws in this one and if the matter inside it was previously in this one then it's not what I mean by "another" universe. I would think of it as a part of this universe, isolated from the rest. To me, a different universe has differing fundamental constants or laws than ours (at least potentially).