I think there's a good chance humans might be a dream of somebody else, we might be the dream. When you have a strange dream they seem so real. There's a possibility one day we all wake up and all this was a dream. I think there's a high probability and even some of the *smartest scientists think that,* its either our own dream or some future version of ourself.
We also could be living in parallel universes, thats my thing that I think I believe. So I think that the reason prayer works is because I think there's parallel universes happening at the same time but each one with slight variations. The reason manifesting or prayer or positive thinking or if you're an atheist they use positive psychology. The reason that happens, I think in the blink of an eye you switch into another universe and you don't realize it happened. If you're religious you call that a miracle. If you're a scientist you call that a time warp. And you just warp into another universe.
I don't understand the appeal of this idea. First off, it is as falsifiable as the existence of leprechauns, the possibility of an invisible giant turtle holding up the earth, or any other supernatural being you can conceive of. The many-worlds hypothesis is of a similar scientific caliber. Lots of pretty theories for how it could be true and nothing in the way of evidence.
Second, what does living in a simulation really change about how I think about my life or reality? If I can't tell it's fake, what does it matter? Unless there is a more "real" universe to which I could travel, it is a moot point to me.
I'm not a solipsist and I also don't think its useful to think of this as a simulation but how do we know or at least have evidence that this not a Boltzmann Brain or a simulation?
As I use the terms, the omniverse is all that can exist; the multiverse is all that does exist – I suspect that these are the same, because that is the simplest answer.
Mathematically this produces the same results as classical quantum theory so there is no physical evidence for or against it relative to regular quantum theory. However it explains anthropocentric fine tuning, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, entanglement, and wave function collapse all with a single mechanism that provides logical, intuitive explanations rather than needing ad hoc assumptions, so in that sense it is simpler than the other theories that produce similar mathematical results.
My omniverse version is a simple explanation of entanglement, wave-function collapse, and universe fine-tuning.
I subscribe to multiverse theory, but a different flavor than the classic "every observation causes a splitting" nonsense.
A multiverse solves the fine-tuning problem, and makes sense of quantum mechanics (both the apparent randomness, and the spooky action at a distance).
I have never found a testable prediction that my version of the multiverse makes that differs from the predictions that quantum mechanics makes. My version merely provides a simple, plausible explanation for: wave function "collapse" upon observation, the need to have an observer for a given "reality" to exist, and spooky action at a distance. fine-turing and the anthropic principle.
It also answers the physics question from an "exam" that I saw in my high school guidance counselor's office: "explain the universe in 25 words or less, and give two examples". My answer is: "everything that can exist always exists, and in some universes you realize this".
(the biology question was something like "write down a complete, balanced chemical equation for life").
The evidence for a multiverse is that it makes a lot of weird things in quantum mechanics intuitive, which is only indirect evidence.
Regarding multiverse theory, I am not a fan of the version that says that the universe splits every time you measure a probabilistic outcome. That is even more a case of the tail wagging the dog than the classical quantum theory that says that the wave function collapses when it is observed.
By multiverse I mean a multiverse where everything that can exist always exists.
In that case all possible outcomes always exist and when you make an observation or measurement you are merely determining which thread within the multiverse this particular thread of your consciousness finds itself on. Consider two entangled photons where they will be guaranteed to have opposite spins but quantum mechanics says their spins are not predetermined. In my version of multiverse theory, entanglement makes total sense – if you measure one photon and find out that you are in a universe where it is spin up, of course in that universe the other one is spin down – no spooky action at a distance needed all.
Maybe they're looking forward to the next character types though - AI or cockroaches maybe if it goes the nuclear war route.
