Multiverse: Ten implications

Throughout all previous epochs and periods of history of the development of the human race and society, and the active observation and subsequent direct exploration of space, the process of obtaining answers to some of the most difficult, essential questions seems to be heating up to the maximum, but at the same time complicating. Consequently, it has become very obvious that we live in a completely unusual environment full of surprises that we often cannot even imagine possible, lurking justaround the corner. In such a space in which certain information that we come to, or at least one that makes a certain sense and is at least somewhat repeatable in its appearance and experimental approach, now allows us to rely on it even more firmly and that thanks to the conclusions we draw from it, we are now creating better and more sensitive instruments with which we examine and modify our environment more deeply, but at the same time our own mental apparatus, brain hardware, which makes it many times easier for us to stay in this world that initially was not so inclined towards our species. That’s why it doesn’t matter if we think it’s good or bad, or more or less favorable to us, because it’s just the way it is. The way we got it.

On the other hand – the universeor better yet: these early concepts of the multiverse perhaps should not even have too solid grounds to stably rival other more grounded ideas that we are working out deeper and deeper today because it comes with very little scientific-experimental basis. That is, the deeper we dig, the more we really turn out to be undermining what we thought we knew yesterday and what we hold for sure. This is precisely the problem with the still fresh quantum principles with which we are increasingly trying to describe our world, and which we still fundamentally do not understand.

That is why certain insights are not the clearest in their essence, and remain bound by irrationality by the fog that will probably always make them so.

This and such insights often frighten us, disturb us, because we cannot incorporate them into our mental apparatus, which is primarily designed to be based on the rationality of physical principles from our immediate environment. It is the rationale on which we base our daily existence in such a complex mechanism of general reality that expands endlessly towards its edges of the macro and micro world. Therefore, from such presented and perceived problems it is worth indicating and a little closer to some of these ghostlyideas that civilizationally we are now at least reaching, and which, at the same time, are neither completely verifiable nor provable. Or at least not enough to say that some of them are certain. And the question is, will we ever…

So let’s start with the concept of the random genesis of conscious brains in the abyss of the neighborhood vacuum:

Boltzmann’s brains

Infinity is an extremely unusual, very human idea because, if nothing else, it is adorned with this general parameter that says that if we stay in it long enough everything that is possible to happen – it will happen. No matter what it is, it’s just that it’s physically feasible and everything else is on very complex numbers. That’s all. The main reason for this is that in this sense (we) have at our disposal unlimited waiting time at the service, the time that allows probability to do everything in its power, and mathematically it is now clear that probability is omnipotent when given freedom of action. Perhaps in this sense we can also address her as the true Godthe One over whom we have been so much disputing since the world and the age, only that we cannot properly understand and accept Him outside of human terms. And not buried in an anthropocentric way of seeing cause and effect.

For this first example we can freely say that it relies mostly on a kind of thought experiment [thought experiment – because it exceeds the technological capacities of a cosmic civilization, like us, the one that still flounders at 0.7 on the Kardash scale] which says: if we refer to the mathematical probability of infinity of numbers, it is far more likely that a fully formed, mature and intelligent brain can be created out of nowhere, out of nothingness, than it is certain to happen in the way that it actually happened – by slow evolution. One that requires much more resources than giving in to quantum fluctuations. Because simple: the first argument is far more meaningful in this scenario because it requires far more material for genesis as well as time than any other scenario that relies on too many parameters and the latter physical matches and many other necessities for such a final outcome.

Although this is an extremely exotic statement [again – from the point of view of human racio], this possibility is absolutely certain if we take into account everything previously said in the scenario of this first example. If we have unlimited space time at our disposal, then, as we have already said, anything is inevitable. The only condition is time. A lot of time and coincidence will do its thing, what it is in charge of. And it is responsible for everything, and therefore for all thinking beings who, according to its principles, at certain moments of time arise, exist and disappear. Returning to the nothingness of the abyss of probability from which, at a certain point in time, they blink, arise, and disappear again. Therefore, these brains which are certainly somewhere out there in the universe incorporeal and beyond all the causative agents are very likely to become so together with already re-read, false memories of previous history, which actually does not exist.

By the same principle of generating memories, they arise together with the memory of a distant past that probably did not exist.

If we go a step further and imagine such a scenario in a much further point of time in the universe, one in which there are no longer material grounds for the gradual development of brain biological life, then these intelligent brains-created-of-nothing would naturally ask themselves, gazing into the endless darkness of the impotent cosmos:

What are they doing here?

What was the universe like in the past?

What did he look like?

What were the conditions of existence?

And in order to avoid the coming madness in the absence of answers to the growing questions about the darkness that surrounds them, they might decide to devise a way to simulate the past of the universe in which, by magical play of mathematical chance, they happened to be. They might even decide to settle their newly formed simulation in order to physically avoid living in nothing.

If all of this is even possible, and certainly not equal to zero, aren’t we just part of the dream scenario of a frenzied supercomputer of the distant future populated in the nothingness of the fruitless darkness of the dead cosmos that was created to simulate the opposite of what surrounds it and inevitably destroy it?!

Sir Roger Penrose’s cosmological model

Another theoretical possibility with which modern cosmology flirts is the question of whether this universe in which we exist is a universe. I.e.: is it one, the first, or just another in the potentially endless array of generating universes and big bangs [white holes?!] that give birth to them?

The elaboration of this idea (CCC – Conformal cyclic cosmology) comes from the famous mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2020 for his discovery of the connection of the general theory of relativity with the creation of black holes. What is most striking about Penrose’s theory is that it is probably possible to detect the last in a series of created worlds, one before our own, if the theory turns out to be correct. Penrose further suggests that black holes could be the best candidate for the footprint-bearer of such a cosmic scenario, and this, furthermore, should be visible/noteworthy precisely on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) map, which is the best indicator of the turbolent past of our universe. That’s why we can comfortably call the CMB a map of origin. At least the current one we live in.

If this were to turn out to be certain, it is not impossible to imagine in this scenario an extremely highly developed civilization, a type III civilization on the Kardashev scale of cosmic civilizations, which lived in that universe before the entire system died, collapsed. A so-developed civilization that had at its disposal not billions of years, but hundreds of billions, certainly found ways to, facing its inevitable end, carve some evidence, an artifact, of its existence into the CMB before it disappeared more than 13.8 billion years ago according to our modern calculation of cosmic time. Our aeon.

Or maybe they recorded in their universe a similar message from some even older civilization from the eons before theirs?!

Perhaps this is precisely our destiny in the distant future – to inform the next civilization about our former existence.

The present moment

It is clear that we live our lives in the present, now, while everything else is somewhere out there in the past, or, on the other hand, lies in some future set of circumstances that have yet to manifest. But something as real and tangible as the present that we conceive and read every moment and which is fundamentally imprinted on our existence, in fact it, as such – the present – does not even exist. We register the present only with our consciousness, its outlines, intersections, while the very core of the present is by no means, nor can it be based on the principles of physics, as well as the set of those rules that define the universe itself. Let’s delve even deeper into this problem we will see that even our conscious brains cannot sufficiently comprehend the concept of the present, primarily because our neurons need a certain amount of time to communicate with each other, because no matter how small and insignificant this range between them, from our macro perspective, it certainly exists and this requires a certain amount of time estimated at ∼50m/s. First and foremost, this is our biological problem.

By referring to physics, this fact becomes even more conspicuous because when we perceive a particular object in space we do not see it as it really is at that particular moment, no, but we see it as it was after that certain interval of time required by a light signal about that object, via photons, that is, a light wave, It reaches the centers of our brain.


If we look at the moon, we see it as it was about a second ago.

If we look at Betelgeuse, we see him as he was almost 650 years ago.

Since we expect Betelgeuse to soon reach a supernova state [a type of stellar explosion during which enormous energy is ejected in an extremely short period of time] this may have already happened because of this distance, while we are not able to know or see/register it, due to the distance between us and Betelgeuse.

On the other hand, here we have an open question of the future towards which we are always moving in one particular direction (the arrow of time). Even our universe, under very specific circumstances, allows us to partially accelerate this flow if we move at a high relative speed through time. Or, if they were stationed near a certain, strong center of gravity like, near a black hole. In these places, the passage of time due to enormous gravity has been modified several times, relatively observed. Thus, we can simply physically define the past and the future, while for the present there are no examples of the so-called absolute present that is mathematically computable. Therefore, it remains as an extremely multi-meaning concept that relies mostly on the subjective feeling of the individual who thinks about it, and therefore cannot possibly be authoritative.

Existence within a black hole

Glow Black And White GIF by xponentialdesign - Find & Share on GIPHY

One possibility, if we are already sticking to the modern cosmological model of the Big Bang Theory, or the Standard Model, is that our existence, or the becoming of the universe that we are currently inhabiting, is due to the genesis within a black hole that occurred in one of the previous iterations of creation, the maternal universes, from which our current cosmic scenario branched out [according to the aforementioned Penrose CCCmodel]. While it certainly cannot be said with certainty that this approach is entirely valid, it does indeed solve many of the multiple problems of cosmology that are currently almost insurmountable, and which, in turn, stem from the idea of the Big Bang as currently the most well-founded and accepted theory of the origin of the universe.

This approach is largely based on Einstein’s (Albert Einstein) General Relativity, which fundamentally in its narrative connects space and time in – spacetime. And this applies to all levels of existence, up to the most extreme possible conditions, those that prevail on the perimeter, i.e. event horizons of black holes or magnetar, where space-and-time under such characteristic conditions and still unimaginable circumstances can rotate its fundamental positions – and one can take on the characteristics of the other. This question is especially important if we try [and greatly try] to determine exactly where the Big Bang took place in space, because we are very sure of the time coordinates.

When it comes to the standard physical model of the explosion, there are no major problems, because the physics is clear, but this potential explosion of all explosions probably did not initially occur in space, but only in time. If we imagine the universe as a surface expanding like an inflatable balloon, the point at which this expansion begins is inside the balloon, not on its surface, the one on which we are today with our measuring instruments and where we try to locate that one physically non-existent point of the Beginning. In this way, the inside of the balloon represents the past, but not the starting point from the perspective of the balloon, that is, the expanding space. This therefore brings us back to relativity, because: the observer who is outside the black hole sees it physically occupying a certain volume inside the space – thus determining the location of the black hole. But if we try to deal with some point inside a black hole then we are no longer talking about the domain of space, but we have to rely more on a point in time. If, theoretically, within a black hole we were moving towards its spacetime singularity, or its center of gravity, we would then move towards the future.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login