Why the Multiverse Theory Is Bullshit

Sure, there is math I do not understand to backup this theory, this idea of there being a, so-called, “multiverse.” Man, how I hate that word, that term. But, personal prejudice set aside; let us now look at the root words of this abominable term: multiverse. *Shutter!*

First up, we have the prefix “multi---,” by way of the word “multiple,” or “many.” Or, to quote my much used, 1987 print of The American Heritage Dictionary:

“Multi---” (prefix) 1. Many; much; multiple. 2. a. More than one. b. More than two. [< Lat. multus, much.]

While nearly 30-years old, I’m pretty sure those particular definitions still hold true as is today. So, working with this definition in mind, let us now explore, in depth, why a multiverse is some straight up bullshit. I’m sorry: why the multiverse theory is just a theory.

Well, to be fair, it’s not entirely false, maybe just mislabeled, as we will soon see.

First off, is the prefix: “multi---.” Okay, sure, from any one point of view, there is multi-everything. There is much of many, of anything you can name. There is not one kind of bug or one bat or one person, there are many of each category, of each item observed.

So using the term “multi---” is a loaded idea straight off. It is a storytelling troupe of science fiction to mesh terms to make the most sense, without using up precious word space with needless explaining. I am sure you can come up with a couple of ideas about what a Fizzlestick might be, without me telling you it is a wand or firearm of some sort. Moving on.

With the prefix “multi---” setting up an intelligence straw man, my beef is with its literary-straw stuffing the overall of its suffix term, “-verse,” within creating the fraudulent term of “multiverse.”

It seems that people just hate to admit that other people exist. So call it poetic justice when people are fooled by words and their actual meaning and definition. The word “verse” is clearly a tool or device primarily use for writing. That is to say that good storytelling always has the ability to suspend its reader’s disbelief. The horrible term “multiverse” does just that with four syllables. Or is it three? Anyway, ...

“Verse” (noun) 1. Writing arranged according to a metrical pattern; poetry. 2. a. One line of poetry. b. A stanza. 3. A specific type of metrical composition, as blank verse. 4. One of the numbered subdivisions of a chapter in the Bible. [< Lat. versus, a line of poetry.]

With these definitions in mind, let us now move this idea forward by attributing the word “verse” to its most well know usage within the art of music. Within any pretty good song there is an underlying structure of a verse and a chorus. Now, complexities of music theory set aside, the idea set forth by a musical verse is to portray, to its listening audience, the meat of (instrumental) narrative being played out. While usually not as memorable as the chorus, which usually ups the song’s dynamics to create the earworm effect, there are most usually two or three verses within any given song. So, within a musical context, the term “multiverse” is rendered moot almost immediately by being a normal, everyday part of music theory and a part of poetry in general.

Okay, so let us now look at the term “multiverse” as a whole and what it stands for in the end of July of the year 2015.

This boisterous term, “multiverse,” at once insists that anybody and everybody have a firm understanding of what exactly the universe is. Which is great, as believing in humanity is always a good thing. But, come on, how many hardcore mathematicians are also charming and charismatic people persons? Possibly more than I know. And I do not know any. Heck, I do not know many people in general, but that is beside the point.

My question to you, beloved reader, is what exactly do you know about the universe, this universe that we both inhabit? It is a pretty big place filled with stars and stuff like that. Right? Well, if that was your answer, you are not wrong. But the universe is so much more than all of that! And, for what it is worth, if the multiverse theory is true, then the universe does revolve are you, dear reader. Believe that and you are half way to Heaven on Earth. :) That is an idea possibly for another essay. So, continuing on with this one....
What exactly does “universe” mean? Returning to my American Heritage Dictionary from 1987, its definition is as follows:

“Universe” (noun) 1. All existing things regarded as a collective entity, 2. a. The earth. b. All human beings. [< Lat. universus, whole.]

You may recognize -- if you understand the end parts of the definition entries -- that the origin of all these words is Latin, [Lat.], as is the prefix “uni---.”

“Uni---” (prefix) One. [< Lat. unus, one.]

Even better! You may have noticed how “uni---” is spelled in Latin, and how it consists of only the first and last two letters of the Latin spelling for universe: universus. Liguistical numerology, anyone? Or, as I like to call it my Tetrisidal Bibical Code.

“Okay, so what does all of this mean?” I hear you asking.

Well, I say that it all goes back to my question of “what do you, beloved reader, know about this universe we inhabit?”

Is the term “universe” just some old and stuffy Shakespearane-like word that needs to be updated? No, it is not. And Shakespeare is overrated.

If you are paying attention to the words, and the definitions of each, then you might have gathered how the idea of a universe, of the universe is about everything existing in one space -- including the ideas of a multiverse.

“Gasp!” I hear you gasp with a reality shattering realization. “But what about the math, Mis’er Curtis? The math!”

I already admitted a bit ago that I do not understand the quantum equations that describe the so-called multiverse. But, like any good philosopher, I do not deny that theory, as it is as real an answer as any other, and probably a little too focused on the details to see the big picture. So let us pull back to see what the big picture entails.

So, at some point, math describes multiple realities co-existing alongside each other. My question to this idea is at what point do all of the numbers and equations take other people into consideration, and not just the universe itself?

*Looks up/Googles “Theorem of the Multiverse,” just to make sure the math does not take other people into consideration.*

With even a cursory glance at the ideas of a multiverse, it is plain to see how such an idea would benefit from each universe being an individual, a personal perspective of life from one person only! From my mighty position as an armchair critic, scientist, and philosopher, I find that the theorem of a multiverse, quite literally, says that other people exist outside of the mathematician who is writing down that quantum equation; or whoever from what other field coming up with the same kind of theory. They all agree it is a theory. The numbers, not life, proves that fact.

I’m pretty sure that everybody experiences the universe in a similar but ultimately different way. So maybe the multiverse theory is the answer to Einstein’s Grand Unification Theory, as long as the numbers represent people. The fact that a male and female duality is needed to spawn almost all of life on Earth is the first step in understanding absolute reality. Math and numbers, like words and letters, are only tools that help us humans to understand and describe the life we have, to others who understand life similarly enough to how we do. Although, we might have to span out across multiple universes to find all of our like-minded companions, and to assimilate any and all previously unknown experiences into our personal part of the human endeavor. So write a story or rant an article about it. Eh? ;D

Summary and Appendix

Saying that multiple universes exist is the same as saying you know what the person in the other room is doing without checking or that you know, for certain, if the imaginary cat in the hypothetical box is dead or not without looking in to find out. That being said, let’s see what kind of other-verses there are out there being foolishly considered.

Infinite Universes: You obviously missed the memo about what a universe is, what the universe is. And, as far as anybody really knows, this universe we all inhabit is pretty damn infinite already as is, you know, outside of your ears and the Earth and the Solar System and the Milky Way Galaxy and the Local Group and the Virgo Super Cluster and so on out into a cosmic void of Greater Outer Space.

A Bubble Universe: with different physics? Do you mean a completely different area of Greater Outer Space, far, far away from the Milky Way Galaxy? Or maybe just on a different planet?

Parallel Universes: I’m pretty sure the term “dimensions” makes an appearance whenever “parallel universes” is being explained. That is because that “parallel place” is another dimension of or within this universe, obviously; or not.

Daughter Universes: So you are an intelligent individual with a big college degree. What other misleading name can one call “choices” and make it sound all sciencey?

Mathematical Universes: You’re talking about somewhere in outer space again, are you not?

In the end, having the idea that multiple universes exist is similar to worshiping multiple gods instead of only one who is a totalitarian dictator. But, I feel that life is solid enough for one reality, one universe for us all to live in, with no real governor other than time and our conscious as our guide.

References:

Clara Moskowitz. “Top 5 Reasons We May Live In A Multiverse”. Space.com, 2012. Web. 25 July 2015. < http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html >

The American Heritage Dictionary. Office Edition. New York: Dell, 1987. p. 450, 740-741, 754. Print.

“The Vrigo Supercluster”. Bibliotecapleyades. n.d. Web. 28 July 2015.
< http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/vidaalien_signtimes09a.htm >