Physicist Says Parallel Universes Definitely Exist and We May Soon Explore Them

a reply to: CraftyArrow

Yeah but I always figured it had to do with active choices we make. You know, as observer we influence the outcome or something like that...

The choices we make create different universes. There should be a you in a wheelchair because you chose to take that bungee-jump or something.

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Right on.... so it could be that we look different..... say if your farther was lacking vitamins and minerals in his sperm.... or the mother eggs lacking stuff (bad diet) etc... thus you could be born handicap etc... so there is that chance the same sperm that made us is not as healthy etc... but still wins the battle and creates us to who we r today.... if that makes sense lol... right?

I'm really disappointed in you all, As soon as I saw "Jeff Rogan " I got excited for the Mandela effect madness that was about to ensue.

Many have been glimpsing these worlds since time immemorial - nature provides us with some of the keys. Cant say any more because of the rules

originally posted by: harold223
Many have been glimpsing these worlds since time immemorial - nature provides us with some of the keys. Cant say any more because of the rules

Whats the harm in telling them a bit eh? its not like they can stop the exodus in 2032.

Where is this definitive/factual/conclusive/certain/absolute statement about the existence of parallel universes you spoke about in the thread title?

You only quoted a definitive statement about quantum mechanics (that was still vague as to what he's precisely referring to with "quantum mechanics", cause people associate different conflicting interpretations* of the observations with that term) from the news article with that title. Spin? "Quantum mechanics" ≠ "the existence of parallel universes". There's a definitive statement about parallel universes for ye. To think or argue that the observations in the study of QM lead to the conclusion that parallel universes actually exist, sounds like a non sequitur to me (Latin for "it does not follow"). *: many of which lead to logical contradictions/paradoxes demonstrating that they therefore logically must be wrong/incorrect/in error, the opposite of definitive/factual/certain/absolute/true/correct, without error (all synonyms where you see a /). One of which is presented as if Carroll presents this as a "fact"/certainty/reality/truth, incidentally the one Schrödinger already demonstrated to lead to a contradiction/paradox with his cat-example. And thus without spelling it out probably, demonstrated to be the wrong interpretation, that is now described as a "fact" in total disregard of Schrödinger's cat-example. Paradoxes are not cool intriguing freaks of nature or reality, they demonstrate wrong interpretions of and thinking about reality. But I didn't really want to get into that one, already said too much; it's distracting from my main point about the title not exactly matching the content of the article or this thread and the agnostic nature of the statements that are actually made (although I haven't really discussed agnosticism in all its facets here, I did that here).

I did see phrases such as "clues ...point to the existence of numerous parallel worlds." and "may prove that multiverses exist." in the news article you were quoting from, but not anyone saying "Parallel Universes Definitely Exist" as in the thread and article title. One would think with a thread title like that you would quote the most relevant part from the article where that definitive/absolute/certain claim is made, if they even included it rather than being vague about it* (or maybe a timeframe for the video where he makes such a definitive/absolute/certain statement; that is, presented as such, not that it actually is as such, that the statement itself describes a certainty/reality).

*: I couldn't find it or any form of it in the news article either (other than in the title of course, but that wasn't a quotation from Carroll). "Clues...point to" is definitely not the same as saying "definitely exist", so that's not another "form of it" as I used that expression in the previous sentence. An example of another form of making the same type of statement about parallel universes would be: 'it is a fact (or reality/certainty/truth) that parallel universes exist.' Or 'it is certain that parallel universes exist.' Those are definitive statements like the one in the thread and article title that is attributed to Carroll (the physicist in question). Quickly switching from the subject of parallel universes to quantum mechanics and then making a definitive statement about QM while still leaving the impression on the hearer that your definitive statement is about the existence of parallel universes, is called "spin" when done intentionally (which for me in some specific cases includes looking the other way when all the news articles do it, not pointing it out to them ahead of publication, because you like the extra attention it might give you when they do get that impression from what you're saying, or at least can use it as a justification to publish it with that impression in the title; while the more nuanced and agnostic statements are quoted in the article itself to cover all the bases).

a reply to: whereislogic
The OP linked to the website for "John B. Wells News" which is the "fake news" site where the fake thread title came from.

Carroll does favor the "many worlds" idea, but he never said "they definitely exist". In fact he says nobody has ever proven the many world interpretation over any other interpretation that doesn't include many worlds, in the video I linked to in my prior post in this thread.

Cosmos on Nautilus: The Multiverse Is an Ancient Idea

Turns out, we've been debating the notion of infinite worlds for millennia.

The multiverse—the idea that there are an infinite number of other universes out there besides our own—strikes many as not only odd, but also exceptionally modern, arising from contemporary physics. But in fact, the notion that there are many worlds besides ours is ancient, stretching back at least 2,500 years. Although the multiverse is never postulated as such in the writings of early thinkers, it’s an implication of efforts to solve some other problem, be it metaphysical, theological or scientific.

Here are some early precursors that may surprise you.

Ancient Multiverses

The earliest hints of the multiverse are found in two ancient Greek schools of thought, the Atomists and the Stoics. The Atomists, whose philosophy dates to the fifth century B.C., argued that that the order and beauty of our world was the accidental product of atoms colliding in an infinite void. The atomic collisions also give rise to an endless number of other, parallel worlds less perfect than our own.

Unlike the Atomists, who described reality without recourse to a divine being, the Stoics saw the cosmos to be imbued with an eternal, indestructible soul. But how to explain the apparent change and destruction we see? The universe recycles itself anew. According to third-century B.C. stoic philosopher Chrysippus of Soli, the world would eventually deteriorate into a sort of ethereal nothingness, but then regenerate again into material form, only for the cycle to repeat itself ad infinitum.

Although there are sharp differences between these two Greek philosophies, their respective ideas of cyclic and parallel universes are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In another part of the ancient world, around 100 A.D., early Buddhist philosophers sought to describe a cosmology of causation, but without invoking a first cause. Their solution? Our world is one of many parallel worlds, each which undergoes its own infinite cycle of creation and destruction.
...

Some scientists are regressing to ancient mythology coming from some of the same geographical groups of Mother Nature-worshippers and Pantheists that came up with or promoted this stuff as knowledge/science (Greek: gnosis; Latin: scientia):


It's not that surprising once you realize how the subject of the multiverse ties in to this discussion: