2
$\begingroup$

To try and clarify: A multiverse can contain many different universes with varying laws of physics, and is usually depicted as bubbles (universes) bouncing around in the multiverse. On the other hand, we have parallel universes, or alternate realities, which are formed from the outcomes of every single instance of a particular universe.

Could these alternate realities be depicted as bubbles continuously and infinitely splitting off from one another to create their own separate universes, randomly bouncing alongside the universes with completely different laws of physics?

Or is it possible there is some order to the multiverse, and a universe splitting into an infinite number of alternate realities could more likely be depicted as a fertilized egg cell splitting in two, then 4, then 8, and so on, yet remaining intact to form a single multicellular organism and the multiverse depicted as being filled with many different multicellular organisms, each with their own certain laws of physics?

This is what I meant by two separate entities: The universes which make up the multiverse are represented as multicellular organisms and the alternate realities are the cells "asexually reproducing" within the multicellular organisms, as compared to all universes and alternate realities splitting off from one another, at random, with no order or connection.

Also, I mentioned nothing of the different dimensions that exist so if they are necessary to explain the answer, by all means, teach me.

I also understand that this is all theory, and there is no way to observe and test the existence of a multiverse, alternate realities and dimensions, so I'm just asking what is our best understanding of these subjects at this time.

$\endgroup$

closed as primarily opinion-based by sphennings, L.Dutch, JBH, Frostfyre, Mołot Sep 8 '17 at 12:50

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Out best understanding is none of what you said can be proven so none of it can be said to be real. $\endgroup$ – A. C. A. C. Sep 7 '17 at 21:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Hello and welcome to world building @ChanceDarren Unfortunately your question is too broad and opinion based for this forum. Questions that are purely theoretical like this can't be answered by this board, so they are not allowed and will be closed. Please read the How to Ask page for more information. $\endgroup$ – Braydon Sep 7 '17 at 21:42
  • $\begingroup$ Our best understanding is not worldbuilding, but physics. And in physics we have no proof at all that several universes or alternate realities exist (the multiple world interpretation of quantum theory is exactly that: an interpretation) $\endgroup$ – Thorsten S. Sep 7 '17 at 22:00
  • $\begingroup$ This is so vague that I would not call it physics. Maybe physics-inspired metaphysics or just sci-fi. So IMO it fits here. Nevertheless if it is going to be hard sci-fi there is the problem that even meaning of the "entity" is vague on this level so the best is to just invent own theory for the constructed world and only try to make it consistent internally and not with the real physics (like in "Rick and Morty"). $\endgroup$ – jaboja Sep 7 '17 at 23:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a classical case of overestimating the power of science. In media, science is often displayed as this all-knowing beast which allows all sorts of crazy predictions. In reality, it's not that different from anything else humans do. Imagine you are a plumber, how long would it take you to figure out how to lay pipes in the centre of a neutron star? Your knowledge is pretty limited to pipes in houses (or industrial complexes, depending on what you do). Physicists know about some specific thing under very specific circumstances in our universe, your question is way beyond anything $\endgroup$ – Raditz_35 Sep 8 '17 at 12:42