Certainly, but it doesn’t necessitate a multiverse

To address this specifically, of course the multiverse has been around in sci-fi for forever, that being said it has a bigger degree of popular reception due to its presence in popular media. On the other hand it is not accepted as an element of fantasy, where it seems like it should be. I don’t think people like Sean carol are being specifically paid by the mouse to lie, because they wouldn’t need to. If he saw that it was to his benefit to promote the idea in order to support his more valid science work then why wouldn’t he? Think of Francis cricks book Life Itself, a book promoting the utter crap idea of panspermia. He has admitted he only wrote the book because it was present in popular media and would draw attention to him, and thus his valid science efforts. Of course the mouse isn’t giving scientists money to lie. They don’t have to, it can be a silent agreement that benefits both parties.

By definition nothing can’t exist, but that’s because nothing is the placeholder term for non-existence. Conceptually, that doesn’t make it less real right?

What would conditions change the number?

Well it stops on either side at one point or another even if a multiverse exists. But then if the multiverse is infinite there’s the issue of infinite regress

That’s interesting but I think the problem with the infinite is the issue of infinite regress, right? So are we thinking of infinite as a sort of shaped vacuity? That would be something like an infinite set, whatever that means. That raises big questions about what we mean when we say infinite.

So more like an infinite set?

This is fascinating thank you

You’re making a “brute fact” argument for the multiverse and then saying it’s unprovable. Why shouldn’t that statement be received as dogmatic or delusional?

I’m fairly certain that the term observer in quantum physics is more of a misnomer. From what I understand it means something more like “conditions”

To be fair science fiction can inspire invention, and therefore certain modes of thought. But I do think the multiverse leaves a lot to be desired

I have I was honestly just looking for other perspectives because more than any of his other work it sounds like mental gymnastics coming from him. He’s one of my favorite science writers and thinkers and I’ve collected most of his works, but man I just don’t buy his multiple universes idea or how he defends it

Only local elections really matter

I have but I don’t know that it needs to imply anything about multiverses

Infinite regress is what you’re looking for, and yes prolly

There tend to be measurable effects from those other ideas though. There is at least a measurable symptom of gravity and what else, even if there is no graviton or anything. The multiverse on the other hand seems to be something that is posited as a potential model but only to fill a void that could potentially be filled some other way.

With regard to quantum states, it’s difficult to measure how the day to day emerges from quantum weirdness and I think some researchers think that if a form of quantum weirdness exists it must also occur in some sense at larger scales, which is how people become spiritualist hucksters. And that concerns me

Also owls are interesting. True

Then again I think there as many abstract ideas that never go anywhere. I don’t know what makes the multiverse more credible than anything like, say, panspermia

That’s why I marked it as a side tangent that might be painting my willingness to accept the idea