I’ve been exploring notions of physical multiplicity for years, and I think you can make rigorous sense of it, using the ideas I’ve already developed in physics. Specifically, I think a multi-verse is fine, and in fact, you can imagine multiplicity expressed through a space that actually exists, where all possible outcomes from a given moment into the next, are actually physically real. Though this implies a question:
How are they arranged in that space?
As stated in a previous note, as a far as I know, multiplicity of outcome is real, given the same initial conditions, since collisions require only conservation of momentum (assuming nothing else changes in the collision). So given a moment in time, all future outcomes would be physically extant in the space of time itself, which would imply a space that grows, but is fixed at all generated points. That is, you’d have a tree that produces from inception, all possible next states. Instead, I think you also need a source that generates basically the same set of initial conditions over and over, and this would be like the Big Bang on repeat, with no material differences between proximate instances. This would cause mass to move not only through Euclidean space, but also through the space of time itself. Creating a space that is at any fixed point, basically the same forever, but nonetheless not truly fixed, with particles that have a velocity in both physical space, and time, entering, and leaving, onto the next.
We can therefore imagine a line through the space of time itself, where nothing changes, because all exchanges of momentum net to zero, causing no change at all to the entire Universe, along that line. That is, this is the freak outcome Universe where every exchange of momentum nets to zero change, producing a static portrait of inception itself –
It’s the coin that always lands on its side, forever.
Imagine this as a line through a plane, with increasingly distant outcomes at increasing distances from this line –
This is all you need to imagine the space of time, organized in the plane.
Now imagine gravity and charge diffuse over both space and time. For if they instead diffuse over only space, then you end up with a law of gravity, e.g., that decreases in strength as a function of linear distance (just use basic trigonometry, assuming a constant rate and distribution of emission of force carriers projected towards a line of increasing distance from a point origin of the force carriers). This is, of course, wrong, because gravity obeys a square law of diffusion. So now instead assume that gravity diffuses over both time and space –
You end up with a square law of diffusion, which is correct.
This suggests the possibility that both gravity and charge are emitted through the space of time itself, in addition to Euclidean space.
But if this is the case, then it poses a related problem:
This implies that identical masses would be positioned proximately to each other in the space of time itself, subject to gravity. They would therefore attract each other, through gravity, which could literally cause a collision between two physically proximate moments in time. Since this doesn’t seem to happen, there must be a mechanism that ensures this doesn’t happen, though I think dark energy could be the result of gravity from proximate outcomes in time (note we wouldn’t be able to otherwise interact with the associated mass). And I think you can use charge and perhaps other forces to make sure that there’s no meaningful intrusion of mass from one moment in time into the next. For example, just imagine the entire Universe rotated so that the next copy of itself is oriented so as to maximize electrostatic repulsion between the original, and the copy, which is positioned at some distance in another space, which I treat as time. This would create repulsion between moments in time, ensuring that only small intrusions occur, which seem to happen, at the quantum scale, where energy comes and goes over short periods of time. This would not apply to light, which could be a means of communication through time.
Moreover, because we can’t physically measure complex numbers, I believe that distance in time actually has complex units, for good reason, rooted at least in part in Relativity. That is, I suspect there’s another space altogether that we progress through, as stated above, that actually has units of complex length (see Footnote 7 of, A Unified Model of the Gravitational, Electrostatic, and Magnetic Forces).
I’ve argued that multiplicity and waves are physically related, and this makes perfect sense, because waves are by definition a distribution over some space. Now consider the idea of not thermodynamic reversibility, but real mathematical reversibility, and consider it in the context of time –
How many initial conditions can give rise to the same final outcome?
Because conservation of momentum is typically the only constraint for collisions, the answer is an infinite number of initial conditions. So now imagine moving backwards through time, from a given state of a system, to its possible prior states, and what do you have?
A wave, an actual quantum wave.
So this suggests at least the possibility that the transition from a point particle to a wave is the result of a change that flips a switch on the direction of time itself, causing a particle to propagate forwards through time, as if it were propagating backwards.