Seeking extraterrestrial life in the multiverse

Sorry, but I find that a little... unnecessary. Chances are, at least if you believe in the work of Michio Kaku, that we can't even go to other universes. And in that case, we don't even need to know whetheror not there is life out there. Nah, they should focus on life in our universe. THEN, they can try searching beyond that

I always thought the word universe covered everything. I mean all of space is called the universe and it's made up of galaxies, upon galaxies, which in turn are each made up of many planetary systems. That is a very pretty artists rendering of the multiverse though. Kinda makes me think we are like microsopic organisms in this HUGE lifeform and one of these days they are going to take an antibiotic and wipe us all out, lol.

Interesting work, thanks for the link. I was never a big fan of the `Anthropic Principle'. It seems tantamount to explaining some strange experimental result by saying `it happened, so it must have been possible for that to happen': obvious, but not an explanation.

We haven't even found all the species in this planet yet.. We gotta focus on ours first then to our solar system then our galaxy Then we search for other galaxies.. :gun:

Interesting work, thanks for the link. I was never a big fan of the `Anthropic Principle'. It seems tantamount to explaining some strange experimental result by saying `it happened, so it must have been possible for that to happen': obvious, but not an explanation. The problem being, it is a valid argument. Were one of Rees's "6 Numbers" not the number we see it to be, we wouldn't be here to observe it. A lot of people don't like it because it doesn't explain anything - that doesn't mean that logically it isn't correct.

The problem being, it is a valid argument. Were one of Rees's "6 Numbers" not the number we see it to be, we wouldn't be here to observe it. Sure, it's an argument, but not an explanation (as you pointed out). Further, while I agree that if one of Rees's ``6 Numbers'' were altered we wouldn't be here to observe it. That doesn't mean that there would be no sentient observers.

Sure, it's an argument, but not an explanation (as you pointed out). Further, while I agree that if one of Rees's ``6 Numbers'' were altered we wouldn't be here to observe it. That doesn't mean that there would be no sentient observers. Yes, I would have to agree with you saying that if somebody gave a more strict definition of 'sentience', then you may have an invalid argument. Either way, Emma said it the best, it's still an argument. Sorry, don't really have any input other than that.

Whoops, it looks like I didn't define what I meant by `sentience'. Here goes: Sentience == Self Aware

Since the 'multiverse' theory is just that, a theory, why waste funding and searching for life in an area where it hasn't been proven fact? If they want to throw money away, why not ship it to Haiti. They seem to need it the most at the moment. Geez.

I think the multiverse is not "different worlds", but frames in time. I think dark matter is created by "actual" matter, and replaces it in this universe, and is recreated, and moved to it's new position in the next universe, where time continues. Think of it as frames on a strip of movie film. Each frame being a different Universe. It is how you are able to move. I think, in that context, you will never be able to travel in time, because the previous frame (universes). no longer contains "real" matter, just dark matter. I do think, it could be viewed.