0

An eternal multiverse is a static multiverse that just exists and is presented as a series of static moments, and each moment is separated by proper time (in the relativistic sense) and has many ways of getting from point A to B (possibilities or different timelines).

The immediate consequences of this idea (real or not) are:

  1. It eliminates the flow of time from reality because the past and future are already defined and no moment in time has any right or privilege to be the present. Hence the name eternal multiverse
  2. It eliminates causality because everything is already defined, all events are prepared ahead of time and every moment of existence is static and unchanging
  3. It eliminates free will because everything is already determined from the beginning of time and no matter what the Human being does, they cannot escape the predetermined pathway/timeline for them

In conclusion, an eternal multiverse creates superdeterminism and these ideas I stated above do not exist objectively. Would this all be true if an eternal multiverse really does exist?

Improve this question
15
  • By "time" are you referring to the idea of an objective present, what philosophers call the 'A-theory' of time, as opposed to the B-theory where time is treated more like a dimension and temporal terms like "present" are understood in a relational way similar to spatial terms like "here"? See the section on McTaggart and the A & B theories at plato.stanford.edu/entries/time an well as the article at rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/time-metaphysics-of/v-2 (click the links in the 'contents' box on the left to see the different sections)
    – Hypnosifl
    Feb 10 '21 at 20:26
  • There is also a short overview of the "block universe" perspective on time, which is usually treated as another name for the B-theory, at abc.net.au/news/science/2018-09-02/… . Note that B-theorists still talk about time and (sometimes) causality, just defining the terms somewhat differently--for example causality may just mean that events at later times can be predicted from events at earlier times due to lawlike relations, even if both events are part of the fixed 4D structure.
    – Hypnosifl
    Feb 10 '21 at 20:29
  • 2
    Also, I think you are misunderstanding the notion of superdeterminism--even if we assume both a 4D "block universe" and a completely deterministic relationship between the state of the world at earlier times and its state at later times, this would not imply superdeterminism, which refers to a particular lack of statistical independence between the states of certain quantum systems prior to measurement and the decisions made by the experimenter about what type of measurement to perform.
    – Hypnosifl
    Feb 10 '21 at 20:32
  • Finally note that although most theories about multiverses assume the block universe perspective, it is quite common for nonbelievers in the multiverse (or 'agnostics') to assume the block universe perspective as well, the notion of an objective present (the A theory) already seems to be undermined by the relativity of simultaneity in Einstein's theories, though strictly speaking one is free to believe these theories but believe there is a metaphysical truth about simultaneity that just has no experimental consequences.
    – Hypnosifl
    Feb 10 '21 at 20:36
  • Since you defined "eternal multiverse" to make those three things true why ask if they would be true if something so defined existed? That said, one can define time, causality and free will in a way that they would still exist in your "eternal multiverse" as "illusions" for internal observers.
    – Conifold
    Feb 10 '21 at 20:36
1

Your comments

"I do not believe in anything until it has strong and concrete evidence, especially experimental evidence"

and

"I believe in B-theory because it is a physical fact about the universe and it has experimental evidence (general/special relativity"

Do not agree with:

"A-theorists are aware of these criticisms, and there are many counterarguments. Some influential A-theorists are A.N. Prior, E.J. Lowe, and Quentin Smith. Some influential B-theorists are Bertrand Russell, W.V.O. Quine, and D.H. Mellor. The A-theory is closely related to the common sense image of time, and the B-theory is more closely related to the scientific image. Proponents of each theory shoulder a certain burden—explaining not just why the opponent’s theory is incorrect but also why it seems to be correct to the opponent."

https://iep.utm.edu/time/#H12

Not only is A vs B series of time not an experimental fact, but you want to say time doesn't exist, it is eliminated!

There are notions of timless physics, but that isn't what you were getting at. There is of couse still time in any static/eternal multiverse or universe. Time is difference/change as Julian Barbour says. There is still difference between each snapshot of a block universe with stuff in it like ours. Maybe what you were going for is the flow of time is a conscious illusion in block universes. So psychologists have to explain why memories give us such a real sensation of "now".

You go on about experimental determination, but what are finite observers such as us supposed to determine empirically when we are limited by the speed of light and other finities? All of your conclusions and their alternatives are compatable with the known laws of physics. We may never be able to conduct a decisive experiment.

And lastly, one problem unqiue to static universe theories, where all moments present, past, and future have no privelage. Why am I experiencing right now, 2021, and not any other of the infinite other moments with conscious observers? If this moment has no privelage, why is my observer moment not in the future where the population is certainly higher and thus an observer moment at random would be more likely to occur?

I've focused on time mostly, because it exists and is the obvious hole in your conclusion. Causaility and free will deserve lengthy discussions, but again realize we may never experimentally determine any of these. We are limited in what experiments can be conducted; we are finite.

Improve this answer
3
  • Yes, I meant the flow of time in my question and not the totality of time itself. You raise an interesting question about the present, our experience of the present, and how no moment is privileged. I do not know what the definite answer is to that, but please do read the article I linked in CriglCragl answer. I do, however, have an answer that is based on intuition and is not necessarily based on logic and reason: we humans experience a present because that is how the human mind works, and it cannot work any other way. Thus, the human experience/mind is linear. Purely subjective.
    – Mind
    Feb 11 '21 at 18:12
  • I updated my question to say the flow of time is eliminated rather than the whole concept of time itself.
    – Mind
    Feb 11 '21 at 18:16
  • "Why am I experiencing right now, 2021, and not any other of the infinite other moments with conscious observers" In the B-theory there is no unique truth about what date on your worldline "you" are experiencing (as if the self was a spotlight moving along the worldline), the experiences of other dates on your worldline are just as real as the experiences of other people different from yourself, so "why am I experiencing 2021" is just a variant of why am I experiencing being this particular human
    – Hypnosifl
    Feb 11 '21 at 18:42
0

Free will is an experience, rather than a theory, so no: Testing Free Will

I see causality as a way of grouping narratives together, as story-telling about what the universe gives us, which is patterns. The story-telling forms s heuristic explanatory overlay, which allows us to abstract useful infor from the noise, and make models that allow us tractability in making predictions.

And time is just a pattern in the patterns, an emergent conserved symmetry.

What a multiverse doesn't resolve, is what makes now, now? If all of the future is already out there and formed, what does the present mean, and why does it have thus strong differentiation between the past & future? Basically, why is time different than space? I try to get at that here Why is the universe governed by very few laws of high generality instead of lots of particular ones? and here How are space and time related?

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    Take a look at this: abc.net.au/news/science/2018-09-02/…, it answers your questions about the present and the differentiation of the future and the past. I think that the present is just the human way of making sense of the universe since it cannot operate in any other way, and thus, subjective. But I do not know for sure since you made me think about what is the present just now, so I have not put much thought into it. But do see the points you are making about time, causality, and free will, and they make sense.
    – Mind
    Feb 10 '21 at 21:08
  • I would like to wait for more answers to come to have a wider and more expansive understanding of this.
    – Mind
    Feb 10 '21 at 21:09
  • I would also like to argue that free will is also a fact in the sense that it can be measured and tested. Although I agree with you that it is also an experience that we have, it is also a fact (if it actually is one).
    – Mind
    Feb 10 '21 at 21:17
  • 1
    @Mind: If you think it can be tested, you should post an answer how in that free-will thread I linked. I'm a presentist, I don't buy growing-block theories, exactly for not accounting for the present. I like the Loop Quantum Gravity approach
    – CriglCragl
    Feb 10 '21 at 23:53
  • 1
    I posted an answer to the testing free will question link you sent me. Please take a look, I think you will be pleased.
    – Mind
    Feb 12 '21 at 16:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.