• bionicjoey
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, it’s a logical answer. The definition of the word universe is “everything that exists”

      Edit: this is really just another way of expressing that the hypothesis isn’t testable. If something could be measured which could validate or falsify the hypothesis, then that thing being measured would have to exist, and therefore has to be part of the universe.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So a multiverse can’t exist because it doesn’t match a Webster’s Dictionary definition or did you just not understand the question?

        • bionicjoey
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The question makes no sense because the terms aren’t well-defined. It’s like asking “are there other sets of integers besides the ones we know about?” There’s only one set of all integers. We know what the integers are by definition. If something looks like an integer, it is an integer. Similarly, you can’t ask about the existence of something which is not part of the universe, because if something exists, it is part of the universe.

          • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The “Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics proposes that there are other universes separate from our own, perhaps even an incredible number of them if there’s one for every quantum interaction.

            It’s consistent with our mathematical understanding of reality. But scientifically, it’s still an open question on whether the hypothesis is testable or whether those other potential universes will ever be observable. https://youtu.be/z-syaCoqkZA?si=5_KJB2rcscjhD9_e