Talk:Multiverse

RFV discussion: August 2015–May 2016
I'm not sure what the given definition, "our multiverse", is supposed to even mean. Is it referring to the philosophical notion, or to the cosmology notion? In the latter case, "our" happens by default. Citations would certainly help. Choor monster (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I am aware of the and similar usages, presumably these don't pass WT:FICTION. Choor monster (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It refers to the cosmological notion. The existence of other multiverses suggest that the "our" is not defaulty.78.146.107.245 21:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems stupid. But we seem to have the same problem with universe, Universe. Defining any X as "our X!" is silly. Equinox ◑ 01:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is, possible even "Tosh" (as it's our tosh). Delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Delete.   D b f  i  r  s   08:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to defining "Universe" as "our universe", since that usage and meaning is well-attested. In various parallel universes, my user name is Choor niceguy or Choor kelpie or Choor chupacabra or Чур монстр, but in our universe, the one where you're reading what I've typed here, it's the name down in my sig.  Regarding capital-M "Multiverse", I have never seen that used outside of titles and comics, and need convincing, because off-hand, the "our" doesn't make sense, being redundant.  (It's entirely possible that "multiverse" is not an "omniverse" in some usages, so to speak, I have not followed this closely.)  And again, regarding the comics usage, that needs to pass WT:FICTION, which is why we don't have Watcher, but WP does have . Choor monster (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: I've done some looking around, and have found only one "Multiverse" outside the comics . I found this high-level reference Universe or Multiverse?: the contributors use "multiverse" exclusively.  And, in his last four novels, uses "multiverse" exclusively. Choor monster (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A dynamic model of the wormhole and the Multiverse model
 * Superposing enough dust matter, a magnetic field, and a Λ term can produce a static solution, which turns out to be a spherical Multiverse model with an infinite number of wormhole-connected spherical universes. (abstract)
 * THE /F/-LANDSCAPE: DYNAMICALLY DETERMINING THE MULTIVERSE
 * This Multiverse landscape of solutions, which we shall refer to as the /F-SU(5)/-Landscape, accommodates a subset of universes compatible with the presently known experimental uncertainties of our own universe. (abstract)
 * CiteSeerX
 * End users encapsulate tasks for the crowd in VMs that are then replicated on the Multiverse server and controlled by crowd workers via a web-based VNC connection. (abstract, probably proper noun use unfortunately, using Multiverse to name a system of operating system(s) and software.)
 * Ghost spinors, shadow electrons and the Deutsch Multiverse
 * So and David Deutsch [1] makes an attempt logically to explain the phenomenon of an inter- ference of quantum particles and comes to a conclusion about existence of the parallel worlds, in all set representing Multiverse [1]. (pdf of article)
 * The theory of Multiverse, multiplicity of physical objects and physical constants
 * Correct description of the Multiverse can be done only within the framework of the quantum theory. (pdf of article)
 * Amgine/t&middot;e 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Item 3 is a proper noun, as you note, so of no relevance here. (Google "multiverse crowd algorithms" if you want more specifics.)  None of the others refer to the "our multiverse" definition, but are merely a capitalized "multiverse".  We normally don't include separate entries for terms that sometimes or even often get capitalized (we have general relativity but not General Relativity).  Note too that the fourth and fifth items are non-native speakers (and colleagues). Choor monster (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Multiverse as a proper noun is a well-established cosmological concept.  It refers to the multiverse in which our Universe is located.  Whether or not more than one multiverse can exist though (and would thus necessitate capitalization to distinguish from other multiverses) is a tetchy subject since the multiverse exists outside of our spacetime.  However, the capitalized form should still be kept since it refers to a specific place, even if that place is unique (and outside of "placeable" space).  Multiverse (capitalized) refers to the specific location of our Universe, whereas multiverse (uncapitalized) refers to the concept of multiple universes.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is why I placed the RfV in the first place. What usages of "Multiverse" can somebody cite where distinguishing "our" (hypothetical) multiverse from all the other (hypothetical) multiverses is part of the writing?  I only get the impression that some people like capital-M, some do not. Choor monster (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Proper noun – e.g. the Moon vs a moon. Our, i.e. this, Multiverse is the plurality of quantum possibilities of our, i.e. this, Universe? If there is a mathematical model, I am guessing, then there would be a distinction between "this" within the set and "that" not-within the set. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Keep" votes do little in this forum. Above, there's mention of (only) one citation that clearly supports the semantic distinction. Plenty of citations prefer one capitalization or the other. I would keep this as an alt form of "multiverse". - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)