lately iâve been thinking a lot about the multiverse, so i wanted to write about it.
The multiverse theory. This theory is - essentially - exactly how it sounds. A theory about multiple universes. To be more thorough, this theory suggests that any and all things imaginable can both exist and not exist, virtually at the same time. Believing in this theory is anyoneâs choice, but there is no evidence to neither entice nor deter one from the possibility. As far as we know, we canât confirm or deny how true it may be, thus making it completely possible. Of course that means it could be completely impossible too, but why would it be impossible? If we canât even travel past our own moon who are we to say there arenât more universes out there?
If, perhaps, we were able to prove this theory true or false, would we want to? Say scientists create some device that could let a human travel to another universe. Would they want to risk it? If they do risk it and they never come back, it wouldnât prove anything. The same goes for time travel. The number one rule of time travel is to NOT run into yourself. Why is that? And why do we have a time travel rule when we know time travel is inherently impossible. And why would running into your past self change anything? Essentially, someone would have had to experience this, and create this universal rule that no one questions nor implements. That implies your past self is the same you. For example, unless you run into yourself from the same decade, this is an entirely different person from the current version.
The multiverse theory could be entirely possible for all we know. Think about this. Math is fundamentally made up. Most things could be. We only know what scientists and other persons of authority have led us to believe in. While we have substantial evidence, we also donât. We have evidence with numbers and ideas we
have been taught. For example, why are trees called trees? Why not automobiles? Who came up with these names, why did they choose them? Most importantly, why do we virtually accept these terms?
There are studies based on the multiverse theory, striving to prove or disprove whether it exists. How exactly does one do that? Many devote their lives to finding even the most consequential piece of evidence, thus removing a tiny layer of our ongoing wonders. Take Einstein for example. He theorized that time is relative to gravity. He suggested that - necessarily - the higher above sea level one is, the quicker one ages. And while that is very minuscule - only having millisecond differences - it is still quite possible. Many theories have surfaced, questioning time, travel, and multiverse credibility.
Nowadays, more people are open to the possibility of less stability among ideas we found comfort in. But centuries ago, philosophers were not only exonerated, but ostracized for questioning the slightest things such as why apples are red.
The multiverse theory is both true yet untrue, which is where things become complicated. If the theory is proven true, that confirms a universe where the theory is also untrue. Perhaps we live in that universe? Anything anyone could ever imagine is a reality, the severity changes have can vary, and always will.
While the possibility of the multiverse could be written about for ages, the absence of sufficient amounts of substantial evidence canât add more depth. The multiverse theory suggests that anything and everything is both possible and impossible. Such as suggesting there are universes where the multiverse theory is an entirely different theory, perhaps one disproving of common knowledge. Believing in the multiverse theory is a choice, and has no set reason to or not to believe in it.
