What types of parallel universe do you find most plausible?

[pulstar]

If you take seriously the theory of all possible universes, including all possible variations," Davies said, "at least some of them must have intelligent civilizations with enough computing power to simulate entire fake worlds. Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones. And assuming we're just typical observers, then we're overwhelmingly likely to find ourselves in a fake universe, not a real one."
So far it's the normal argument.
Then Davies makes his move. He claims that because the theoretical existence of multiple universes is based on the laws of physics in our universe, if this universe is simulated, then its laws of physics are also simulated, which would mean that this universe's physics is a fake. Therefore, Davies reasoned, "We cannot use the argument that the physics in our universe leads to multiple universes, because it also leads to a fake universe with fake physics." That undermines the whole argument that fundamental physics generates multiple universes, because the reasoning collapses in circularity.

https://www.space.com/30124-is-our-universe-a-fake.html

IMHO his argument is flawed because those civilizations could use the real physics of their universes to model a simulated universe. Of course they would also create simulated universes with different laws. But if we live in a simulated universe, we may just happen to live in one that is based on the same physics (or close enough) of its creators. It may also be that most universes where advanced civilizations able to create simulated universes exist have laws of physics similar to ours. So a "fake" universe doesn't necessary mean fake physics. What do you think?

Agree. Why do they need to simulate just one universe per process? The simulator may simulate different models of simulation in parallel, within one process.

[gixajo]

tbh they are all plausible and the simulated universe theory doesn't necessarily contradicts all the other possibilities

This.

I don't have enough knowledge base to give a very deep opinion on this subject, my approach to all this is through science fiction.

Although these topics are tangential to topics, views and discussions of mathematics, which is a subject that touches me more closely.

For example this (Max Telgmar has usually worked with Brian Greene, who wah who proposed the classification of multiverses that OP used)

https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

Or this:





Gödel theories are a strong link between those phisic theories and maths.

These subjects that mix (astro)physics, (pure) mathematics and philosophy, take you to another dimension without leaving the site just by closing your eyes.

I would love to be more intelligent to be able to contribute something in those fields(I don't mean at the forum level, if not at a professional level), unfortunately, I am not.

[pulstar]

I would love to be more intelligent to be able to contribute something in those fields(I don't mean at the forum level, if not at a professional level), unfortunately, I am not.

My knowledge of topics related to multiverses is purely based on what I learned by youtube videos, reading popular science books, or (more rarely) some modern physics notebooks in last 5 years or so.

[Incal]

Fascinating subject.

[calxpal]

6 and 9

[pulstar]

I would say that nr 9 makes simulated universes inevitable. However Paul Davies and some other physicists think that the hypothesis of a simulated universe is scientifically untenable. From this Davies concludes that multiverse theories are false.

I thought about whether 6) makes 9) possible, and I came to conclusion that in quantum mechanics many-particles system you can only constitute a limited amount of allowed states, thus quantum multiverse excludes some of the possibilities ultimate unvierse should provide (as the math breaks there). So if you believe in 6) you shouldn't believe in 9), or at least believe in some limited form of 9).

[Insuperable]

6 and 9

You naughty girl.

[Insuperable]

Many world interpretation is so unscientific.

[Herr Galke]

6 and 8.

Who's to say that Our human brains could even comprehend a trip to another universe, parallel time etc..? Would all of our neurons just melt from over processing??
Also, is it possible that these NDE's that people have- their visions" are not just a different universe or dimension, but something even beyond those?

[pulstar]

Many world interpretation is so unscientific.

Actually Everetts view on quantum mechanics is more consistent than Copenhagen interpretation.