4 Storied Multiverse (SM)

4.1 SM and sizmarians



According to paleontology, the first artificial dwellings, constructed from mammoth bones, date back to around 15,000 BC (ref to Mikhael Cook). Before this innovation, humans lived in caves. The concept of building artificial homes would have seemed as absurd to those early cave dwellers as the notion of creating artificial worlds might seem to us today. Caves, naturally formed and discovered rather than built, were the uncontested homes of early humans. It took a revolutionary shift in thinking and many thousands of years for people to transition from living in caves to establishing villages.

At the dawn of the 21 century, we might be experiencing a similar paradigm shift to the one our ancestors faced when they moved out of caves. Today, people from various cultural "caves" are beginning to realize that they can create their own worlds, tailored to their specific needs. It's becoming clear that there isn't just one world out there in nature; there are many, and even more can be artificially created as needed. The remainder of this chapter will focus on developing a conceptual framework known as the "Storied Multiverse," which I hope will facilitate this paradigm shift.

Resolving contradictions

People from various cultures hold beliefs in different worlds and assert different truths. The stories they share often conflict with one another. For example, one culture might believe that a person goes to heaven after death, while another might believe that the person simply ceases to exist. Each of these narratives can be internally coherent, but contradictions arise when these stories are compared across the diverse tapestry of cultural beliefs in the multiverse. These contradictions need to be addressed unless we consider the multiverse merely an abstract framework that holds these varying stories without needing to reconcile or provide meaning to them.

From a logical standpoint, any problem can result in no solution, one solution, or multiple solutions. If we apply this to the concept of a multiverse containing different storied-worlds (SWs), the scenario where there is no solution suggests that it may not be possible to reconcile these diverse worlds into a coherent single framework. Each SW presents a story that is internally consistent and meaningful to its inhabitants. However, when viewed collectively across the multiverse, these stories may not align or integrate, resulting in a collection of narratives that lacks overall coherence.

Should we concern ourselves with these contradictions? If the inhabitants of individual worlds are content with their beliefs, perhaps it isn't necessary to resolve these differences. As previously suggested, we might view the multiverse simply as a container for diverse worlds, without expecting it to form a coherent whole. This approach allows each cultural narrative to stand on its own, acknowledging that the multiverse doesn't need to provide a unified explanation or reconcile all viewpoints. This perspective can be especially valuable in fostering respect and understanding across different cultures by acknowledging and valuing their unique worldviews without forcing them into a single framework.

On the other hand, the concept of a multiverse where each universe maintains its own distinct truth without an overarching framework to integrate these stories present significant challenges. By allowing each storied-world to exist in isolation, we risk severing communication channels between these worlds. This separation can make it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve social agreements and harmonious coexistence among different communities.

Furthermore, this approach to the multiverse, which lacks intellectual and aesthetic integration, may not be satisfying or fulfilling. It could be seen as a "lazy" solution that doesn't challenge us to seek deeper connections or understanding between disparate beliefs. Such a multiverse might not be intellectually stimulating or beautiful enough to merit our time and efforts, as it fails to encourage exploration or synthesis of diverse perspectives into a more cohesive whole.

Another way to resolve contradictions between different SWs is by insisting on a single true description of the real world, all other descriptions ranked with regard to their proximity to that unique truth. Contradictions are resolved just by downgrading the status of some claims as not being true and assigning a privileged status to other claims considered to be closer to truth. A certain economy of ontology and efforts follows from this solution because in this case one needs to take care of only one true description of the universe rather than tracking manifold of SWs. This view resonates with the paradigm, mainstream vision of the universe advocated by modern science. It also appeals to our intuitive understanding of how this world must be organised. For instance, I can make many predictions of the future, but there is only one real future to be discovered rather than being designed. There is only one true story which represents one real world.

However, as discussed in previous chapters, this model encounters significant challenges, particularly with complex systems. In such systems, the truth can be elusive, and descriptions often carry inherent uncertainties. These complexities can yield multiple valid interpretations, making it difficult to sustain a single, definitive truth. Thus, while appealing for its simplicity and alignment with scientific principles, this approach may not adequately accommodate the nuanced realities of more complex scenarios.

An alternative to the traditional monoverse concept of reality is offered by multiverse theory, which suggests that there are multiple, quasi-coherent descriptions of reality, each potentially corresponding to different realities, and each consistent with its own set of empirical evidence. This multiverse vision may not appeal to our intuitions (since our intuitions are based on experiences with simple phenomena) but it aligns well with our understanding of complex systems. It diverges from the mainstream scientific view of a single, unified universe, yet it resonates with cutting-edge theories in physics and philosophy, such as multiverse of physics and possible worlds in philosophy.

Additionally, the fact that we live in multicultural societies, while not definitive proof, does support the multiverse concept by illustrating how diverse and varied human perspectives and experiences can be. Another compelling argument for the multiverse approach is its flexibility and versatility, which may be more adept at managing and maintaining high standards of living compared to the more rigid and singular monoverse model.

While the multiverse interpretation offers a compelling alternative to a singular universe, merely postulating this multiverse doesn't automatically resolve the inherent contradictions between different worldviews or teachings. To address this challenge, we need an overarching narrative or framework that can reconcile these contradictions.

The strategy

First of all, we are not going to develop in this manuscript the only true or the best description of the multiverse. I believe, such description does not exist. There is a considerable degree of freedom in the way the multiverse can be designed, and other people can come up with other, not least plausible interpretations of it. This freedom, however, does not entail anarchy - certain constraints must be introduced to guide such developments and ensure high quality of the end-product. In our case in particular, these constrains will be referring to epistemological reasons we have mentioned earlier, such as the requirement of a logically cohesive description of the multiverse and the existence of reproducible practices delivering features characteristic of it. Besides that, I want the multiverse to be aesthetically appealing and fulfilling our quality of life requirements. To this end, I shall start with a fairly general and not particularly polished outline of this multiverse so that we can see it as a whole and decide later how to evolve it further.

To resolve contradictions between different SWs, we will employ the following strategy. Whenever possible, we resolve contradictory statements made by two SWs by allocating objects referred by these statements into separate worlds and restricting the application domain for each of these statements to the corresponding worlds. For example, to reconcile statements about the afterlife made by scientist and religious person, we allocate two interpretations of the afterlife into two distinct storied-worlds one comprising the afterlife of the scientist and another one comprising the afterlife of the religious person. If for some reasons such localisation of statements is not possible, then we have a genuine contradiction which must be resolved by altering SWs themselves. For example, we may have two weather forecasts for tomorrow contradicting each other (rain vs sun). Unless we find means to duplicate the planet Earth and allocate each copy into a separate world (one with a sunny day and another one with a rainy day), we consider these two forecasts as expressing a genuine contradiction - one statement must be true and another statement must be false.

Different worlds as different belief networks

Before we proceed further with the multiverse theory, it makes sense to clarify our vocabulary. Throughout this manuscript we routinely use such terms as different worlds, many worlds, parallel universes etc. To have a better understanding of these terms, let me elaborate further on their meaning.

Take the notion of “parallel universes”. In geometry the notion of “parallel” would be interpreted as two (or more) unbounded surfaces that never cross each other. Anything that happens on one plane is completely independent and uncorrelated with whatever happens on another plane. If you live on one of these planes you have no idea (and will never have) of what happens on another plane. If the planes are not perfectly parallel (say they bend and at some places and may occasionally overlap with each other) then we talk about two worlds which are parallel (and hence independent from each other) only to a certain degree.

For completely independent and mutually inaccessible worlds (as those predicted by the multiverse physics) there would be no flux of any property between such worlds which makes them not particularly interesting. For partially coupled worlds we may have one- or two-way communication channels established between these worlds, implemented via a set of shared dimensions. For example, in our universe different worlds have shared natural resources. In some other universes they may have shared feelings, thoughts, existential states etc.

When people talk about parallel universes they often take it as an opportunity to travel from one place to another (for example, an alien popping out of the fifth dimension). These parallel universes might have different physics but whatever difference in cosmology, the personality of the traveller does not change during such transition – the identity of the traveller remains intact. However exciting, the travel between such parallel universes, conceptually it is not much different from a conventional travel within a single universe from one place to another.

Let’s take another established term - “many worlds”. If I live in a city and someone lives in a country, does it mean that we live in different worlds? There are some overlaps and interactions between these two worlds but in general at some scales and along some dimensions they evolve quite separately from each other. So, do we live in different worlds? The reader may argue that this example is trivial and not interesting. No one gets excited about such different worlds. When people talk about different worlds they usually mean something else.

If there are many worlds, they must be different from each other, and that difference must be captured by some indicators (characteristics) of these worlds. Hence, we have to define the word “world” upfront in order to be able to claim one world is different from another. We agreed earlier to consider ontology, cosmology, metaphysics, identity, practices, and values as features identifying a particular world. This list is not unequivocal and can be altered when needed but, I think, it gives us a sufficiently solid framework to channel our discussion. If two people have a substantial difference in interpreting these features of the world, we say they are likely to live in different worlds.

This interpretation of different worlds enables us to generalise the notion of the cross-world travel to encompass both physics and psychology. From this perspective individuals in different cultures live in different worlds. The travel between worlds now implies not only the space-travel but also changes of personality of the traveller. A migrant internalising a new culture, for example, is considered a traveller moving from one world to another. Changing belief systems through education or new experiences is equivalent to travelling across the worlds. Our values, goals, and practices, the whole personality often change as a result of such journey. Such transitions are critical to our understanding of our selves and the meaning of our lives. Because it is important and interesting, in the rest of this chapter the notion of the cross-word travel will be referring predominantly to the changes of personality triggered by the alteration of the internalised belief systems.

Shared dimensions

Multiverse of fully isolated universes

Now that we have a better understanding of the notion of different worlds and the cross-world travel, we can focus on designing the structure of the multiverse. Remember we expect the multiverse to resolve contradictions between different worlds comprising it. A trivial solution to this problem is to declare many parallel isolated worlds where for each statement there is a world where this statement is true. Consider these worlds as streams of parallel and isolated trajectories. In some of these trajectories the Indian Ocean will stay forever, in others it will dry out in 5000 years. Whether the statement “the Indian Ocean will stay forever” is true or false depends on whether we live on the trajectory with the eternal ocean, or the trajectory with the dry ocean.

The problem with such account of the multiverse is that we have no idea to which of these isolated and independent worlds we belong. Up till now a bunch of these worlds may have exactly the same history and they may start diverging from each other right now, and some of these worlds will last forever and others will have a finite span. We have no clue which of these trajectories is ours, and hence this vision does not help us to predict the future. Another problem with such a multiverse is that we have little freedom in choosing and moving between universes. Even if we new our current trajectory, we cannot move to another, a better trajectory, because these universes are assumed to be fully isolated from each other.

The bottom line is that by introducing a multivese of fully isolated universes we do resolve contradictions but have no gains compared to the monoverse picture in terms of the predictive powers and the quality of life.

Multiverse of fully coupled universes

Now let’s introduce interactions between these worlds. First, assume that all dimensions of all universes are strongly correlated, so that the fate of every member of the ensemble is about the same as that of the rest. Such multiverse gives no benefits compared to the conventional monoverse - we still live in a single world with no choice and no freedom.

Multiverse of partly coupled universes

Neither the multiverse of fully correlated SWs nor the multiverse of completely isolated SWs will do the job. To have the multiverse story epistemologically plausible and interesting enough for us to work with it (and may be even live in it) it must be represented by an ensemble of partially coupled worlds. A multiverse where certain dimensions are shared across storied-worlds and other dimensions are left isolated and private to the communities and individuals inhabiting that multiverse.

Sizmarians

The multiverse as a collection of worlds with partially shared dimensions seems like the description of our own world - we have shared natural resources, partially binding social constructs and a diverse range of metaphysical beliefs each advocating a particular vision of transcendental realms. So, perhaps, we already live in such a storied multiverse.

According to the GISO machinery, for this multiverse to be real it must have a logically cohesive description, including an outline of features characteristic of it and practices delivering these features. It is up to us to decide how much of this logical cohesion we want this description to have (how much is enough for us to believe it is true). We may push it hard towards reconciling all established belief systems, or we can leave these systems slack, as they are - there will be some cross-world inconsistencies present in such multiverse and so what? We can live with this as long as the inhabitants of individual worlds comprising this multiverse can live with each other. They may believe different truths, but as Richard Rorty pointed out, the truth may not be particularly relevant point to care about when it comes to the peaceful coexistence of heterogeneous communities. And yet, having acknowledged that a conceptual rigor of the multiverse theory may not be of a paramount significance to our lives, it would be nice to have at least major contradictions in this multiverse brushed away, so that we can believe it is real. Apart from being intellectually appealing, such reconciled multiverse may provide common grounds for individual worlds to help inhabitants of these worlds to discuss issues when needed.

In what follows, I shall stick with the GISO machinery, to define the ontology, cosmology and the metaphysics of the storied-multiverse. According to this vision, the storied-multiverse has been created (or will be created) by people who instantiate and maintain it through practices. There are 2 ways they can accomplish this task.

First, the inhabitants of individual worlds can create a multiverse unintentionally, as a byproduct of their isolated efforts aiming at their own individual worlds. For example, Ann instantiates the world A, Bill instantiates the world B. By definition A and B make up the multiverse AB, but neither Ann nor Bill intended to create a multiverse. Each of them care only about their own world. The collection AB might be representing a multiverse but no one believes it is real - Ann believes only A is true, Bill believes only B us true. Since no one knows about this multiverse, according to ISO machinery, it is not really real - it exists in an abstract hypothetical state (which is, it may or may not be real). For example, Ann and Bill may live in a monoverse where only one belief system (A) is true, all other beliefs (B, C, D ...) are false.

Another way to create a multiverse is by purposefully instantiating it out of the hypothetical state. To accomplish this task, we need a community of practitioners - call them sizmarians (after the Georgian word sizmari – dream) - who believe storied-multiverse is real and design, instantiate, and maintain it through practices. Like many other inhabitants of the multiverse, sizmarians inhabit their own world Sizmari, which is part of the storied multiverse. Unlike many other inhabitants of the multiverse who believe only their own worlds are real, sizmarians think there are many different all equally real worlds.

Sizmarians practice the GISO machinery on a daily basis and take full responsibility for instantiating and maintaining a storied-multiverse overarching individual worlds and explaining them through the ISO machinery. They believe every world in this multiverse has been created and is maintained by people. Without people gods and the universe transform into an abstract hypothetical state.

Like many other belief systems, the storied-world of Sizmarians promises a sustainable well-being for its inhabitants. Peculiar to sizmarians is a wide range of options available to them to achieve such well-being. They can design and instantiate new personalities, new social orders and new gods. Furthermore, if needed they can create fundamentally new complex entities by integrating novel theories and practices and delivering new experiences never seen or experienced before. There are almost no limits to what they can design and accomplish through the GISO machinery.



Afterlife

Sizmarians design and instantiate almost literally everything in the universe, including their own afterlife. They believe there are many afterlives already established by various cultures and teachings, and many more will be established in the future.

Let’s see how this project of instantiating an afterlife can be accomplished through the GISO machinery. According to this schema, an infinite number of afterlives exists in a hypothetical state, and some of them can be instantiated via practices. And "some" here means almost infinity - there are so many different ways we can design and instantiate the afterlife.... Ok. Leis make a short list. Mind it, we are not professionals, just curios bunch. I guess, in the future there will be companies designing and delivering afterlife for customers (analogous to building companies delivering houses). Production of some of these afterlives will be automated to accommodate almost any requirements. Some companies will specialize in developing exclusive, custom built afterlife for a "special" people, families, and communities. Other companies will be producing and maintaining standard sets.

Lets make a list of possible afterlives (offered by one of such companies) .

1. Reincarnation. You are reborn on the same planet. You may specify upfront a country, a city, or even a family you want to reincarnate.

2. You move to a parallel universe, with a planet similar to Earth. In fact this planet may even belong to your own universe, but it is so far away there is no way you can reach it by conventional means.

3. Same as 2, but paradise - unlike inhabitants of the Earth, everybody is happy on that planet.

4. Nothing. Black, void nothing. If you are tired of all the hassle, if it too much for you, and you want just to be gone, this is place for you.

5. Nirvana. A state of light, you are nowhere and everywhere and feel good. 6. You are reborn at higher planes of the reality (semi-gods, gods, irradiance) 7. We talk to you and you tell us what you want.

THe exact mechanism of the transitioning to afterlife varies across the storied-worlds. From the multiverse perspective (GISO), a person first transforms to the abstract domain, and then instantiates into new world via the mechanisms specific to that world. For some, it could be people making babies thus helping them to reincarnate to the same planet, for others it is an omnipotent divine creature guiding these transformation, other people believe these transformations are driven by the machinery of the universe pushing souls from the abstract domain to the matching particular worlds.

To be specific let's pick up the number 3, paradise on another planet. How to instantiate it? According to GISO machinery we need a description, features characteristic of it, and practices to deliver these features.

Let’s start with the description. We assume no death, no thickness, and no pain on that planet. (Yeh..., i know, it is not particularly original or novel, but lets stick with it for a time being). Everybody is always young and healthy. There is no sadness and no suffering. The climate and environment on this planet are pretty much the same as those on the planet Earth. People we love wait for us there so that we can enjoy this paradise together.
Sizmarians tend to call this planet a hub-paradise because they do not stay there forever. They enjoy experiences and appreciate new capacities such as flying in clouds, making bubbles out of nebulas and playing cricket with stars - almost everything is possible in this paradise, except that you cannot escape the boredom. At some point in time sizmarians get bored and move elsewhere to other places, where they can meet challenges and release the beauty and the power hidden deep inside and making it across the transcendental divide collapsing the wild infinity into a single point.

This snippet illustrates the point but by no means it provides a proper description of this paradise. To underpin the storied-world, the description must be rich and convincing. Perhaps, something analogous to those fiction worlds which are so extensive and comprehensive you start wondering whether they have been invented or indeed exist somewhere out there in the parallel realm.

Another critical piece of the GISO machinery (missed so far in our description of the paradise) is practice. There are many different stories and many different novels, some of them describing comprehensive fictional worlds, but all these stories are just bits of information, dead stuff, unless they include specific instructions telling us how to instantiate them. “Practice” is the key word that differentiates abstract philosophical theories and novels from science and religious systems. Through practices we create empirical evidence that turns a theoretical construct into the real stuff. The question is what we take to be an empirical evidence of the paradise and how we are going to instantiate it? In other words, we need to know features characteristic of the paradise and practices recovering these features.

Let's start with features. Remember whenever we build an artificial construct we have some purpose in mind. The construct is meant to function properly and deliver specific outcomes. According to the GISO machinery, as long as these outcomes are delivered, whatever the description of that construct, it must be referring to the real stuff. If the lawn mower cuts the grass, it is the real lawn-mower however we describe it.

So, what is the key function of the paradise? In other words, what do we expect this paradise to deliver?
The first thing which comes to my mind is that it is a placeholder for people passed away. It is meant to accommodate gone people. Kind of an island where all these people go (and for some reasons no one comes back to tell us about this island). Can we go there ourselves and prove it real by seeing it, touching it, listening to it, and, perhaps, even smelling it? If we were able to do so, we would definitely prove this island real.

The short answer is we cannot. Well ..., in principle, we can check it when we die but until then we cannot.

Does it mean we cannot prove the afterlife? And if we cannot, shall we abandon our project?

I think, we shall pause here for a moment and think what this paradise means for us, and why we need it. Is this analogy with an island good enough for us to rely on it? Do we value this paradise because it represents a specific place, a particular environment with mountains, oceans, and valleys, or there is something else in this paradise, which is really valuable to us, something defining its essence?

I would argue, it is not so much a place or an environment that we value in this paradise, but a particular state of being associated with it. We expect this paradise to provide us with a positive state of being characterized with no fear, no anxiety, no stress, but light, warmth, energy, love. And all this i believe is impossible to achieve without being in touch with people we love and care about. We are inescapably social beings and need to share this paradise with others. In fact certain psychological states and sentiments instrumental to the journey to this paradise may not be achievable outside the community at all (which brings us to an interesting question about the robots - if they don't have feelings, can they have afterlife?).

Anyway, The point is that we don't really care about the oceans, mountains, and vegetation on this planet as long as we can attain this special state of being. The state of goodness and being together with people we care abut, is a feature characteristic of our paradise, and having this state attained through reproducible practices (as a member of community), according to the GISO machinery, proves this paradise real.

So far so good. We have a description of the paradise, we identified a feature characteristic of it, and there might be practices delivering this feature to this-worldly people. In other world, we might be able to prove this paradise is real for us (alive people) by experiencing states specific to paradise. And those states integrate our mental and psychological states, and by our I mean us individuals and people we care about.

Ok. I'm happy for us (alive people) being able from time to time to live as if we are in paradise. We think we are having glimpses of paradise through this experience. Is it true? Does it make sense to hold such believe at all?

I think, the answer to this question is - it depends. Something that makes little or no sense in one context may have a perfect sense in another context. Let me explain this point.

The transition to afterlife happens once in a life time and is analogous to many other unique events (like a particular wedding ceremony, for example). To prove the wedding ceremony real, we collect present day data and link this data to the past wedding event through the chain of logical inferences. This data may encompass our memories of the wedding (important to us but not particularly convincing piece of evidence for others), observations of the family members, photographs taken during the ceremony etc. All this data is available to us at present. When integrated into a logically cohesive story about the wedding ceremony these data prove this ceremony real (it is not something we hallucinated about, or invented like a fiction story). Since we can link unequivocally present observational data to the past event, this data is considered empirical evidence of that event - we don't have to invent time-machine to go back in time and witness this wedding ceremony again in order to prove it real.

Analogously, for the paradise, if we can link an immediate and mediated experiences of the paradise (such as our personal experience of a particular state of being associated with the paradise, and also observations of social events and material artefacts associated with this paradise), if we can link these present-day data with the description of the future event or phenomena (ie afterlife paradise), then we would take these data as an empirical evidence of this future event or phenomena. In other words, if we can tell a logically-cohesive story integrating our present-day experiences and observations with the description of the afterlife paradise, then these data would be considered evidence to prove this paradise real. Would they?

Ok... Lets take a deep breath, and think for a moment... It feels like something is not quite right here. Unlike the wedding ceremony where all data points almost unequivocally to the very specific event in the past, with the afterlife stories different people can provide different interpretations of the same set of observations, telling us different, often contradicting each other stories. (well ... to be fair, past events can be as much uncertain as the future events, but we still tend to think of them as particular events which have happened in the past rather than a range of possibilities we may or may not encounter in the future). The problem seems to be a random, indeterminate nature of the future - we can tell many different stories about the future and all these stories may look plausible. How do we know which one is true?

... Aha! Finally, I think, I have reached the roots of this problem and can show that the right answer to this question depends on the context.

From the monoverse perspective (advocating single truth), there is one future and there must be one true story describing this future. Given limited evidence we have about the afterlife, it might be difficult if not impossible to select this story out of the infinite number of possibilities. Subsequently, whatever story we select, it will have little credibility. Imagine a bag with billions of white marbles and only one marble painted red. The chances of randomly selecting the red one are close to zero. Any specific description of the afterlife becomes extremely improbable (and hence hard to believe) in the context of the monoverse theory.

On the other hand, from the multiverse perspective, it makes perfect sense to have many different stories simultaneously true, describing many different futures. According to this vision, whatever is created in this multiverse, is created through the GISO machinery which applies across the worlds to every domain including the afterlife. Hence, the afterlife is designed and instantiated by people through the GISO machinery analogous to any other entity they design and instantiate in this world. Instead of a single colored marble in the bag, now we have vast majority of balls painted, and our chances of selecting the colored marble are much higher. Furthermore, if by chance we picked up a white ball, we can paint it in any color we wish. Any specific afterlife becomes much more plausible (and easier to believe) in a multiverse context.


Another point to make here is that according to monoverse vision, there is a fundamental difference between the past and the future events, in a sense that past has already being instantiated and exists as a single particular entity while the future exists as a range of hypothetical states. Strategies applied to prove a particular event in the past may not be applicable to the future hypothetical states which may or may not instantiate.

On the other hand, from the multiverse perspective, there is no fundamental difference between the past and the future events. Both can exist in a hypothetical and particular states. Strategies tested with the past events, can be transferred and applied directly to the future events.

These considerations, of course, does not prove the sizmarian-paradise unequivocally but they do lend a strong credit to it - within the multiverse context it makes sense for us to suggest this paradise is real, even though there is little hard evidence of it available at the present. Note that none of the alternative hypotheses have a strong observational support either.

Taking an island, again, as an analogy, from a monoverse perspective there could be only one island in the ocean (or none) and all people eventually go there regardless what they do or what they wish. From the multiverse perspective there are many, perhaps, even infinite number of islands, and depending on the ship we build and the direction we take to navigate, we arrive at one or another location in the afterlife. Given the infinite number of islands in this ocean, many of them already instantiated, one more island (sizmarian-paradise) does not spoil the picture - it makes sense to suggest such an island either already exists or can be created in the future if needed. It would be much more difficult to accommodate this island into the monoverse picture.

A point worth making here is that when dealing with highly uncertain phenomena, the standards of proofs must be adjusted properly. We don't have and cannot have strong evidence to discriminate between hypotheses concerning metaphysical domains. Yet, when it comes to afterlife, we cannot suspend questions in the thin air by leaving them unanswered. Whether we like it or not, we internalize and believe one out of many possible hypotheses, however little evidence it may have. The choice is guided by a number of reasons including our general understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Having a story consistent with a more general belief system, in this case, is considered sufficient reason for us to believe it plausible (or even true). Apart from epistemological reasons, other factors influencing our decisions when dealing with such irreducibly uncertain problems are our psychological and aesthetic preferences. The notion of the sustainable well-being becomes instrumental to the ultimate choice when dealing with such problems.

We can grant sizmarians to have this paradise by default or require them to earn it via virtuous behavior. Virtues are instrumental to good-life (sustainable well-being) - a feature characteristic of any storied-world including a storied-multiverse.


Huh, looks like we are getting somewhere. We have outlined a strategy to create a new paradise, such that both the strategy and the paradise make sense in the multiverse context. In other words, if one believes storied-multiverse, then it takes only a minor effort for him/her to believe the sizmarian-paradise. Isn’t it cool?
You are still not convinced? …
But you should be, because the reason for your doubts is you not realising a contingent nature of our beliefs. Whatever your belief about the afterlife is right now, and whatever other teachings you may think about, they got the same issue as the afterlife we have just invented – they all are missing hard empirical evidence. Reiterating again Richard Rorty, when we talk about the afterlife, we shall leave aside the notion of truth as not being particularly useful and focus instead on our well-being. The notion of truth in these circumstances is too vague and unreliable to guide our decisions.
Since we don't know truth, you may think, we shall suspend the problem and refuse to make a choice, but we cannot. Whether we like it or not, we still internalise one or another interpretation of the afterlife and the choice is often contingent, depending on our upbringing, education, individual preferences hardwired through the genetic build up, etc. Given these considerations, it makes sense for us to choose the interpretation of the afterlife we feel comfortable with rather than the one which is "true".

If the distant planet as a placeholder for a paradise is too hard for you to visualise and instantiate, an alternative course of actions is to create an afterlife on the planet Earth (e.g. species of reincarnation). This opens an opportunity for various sorts of practices we may find easier to relate to the afterlife (e.g. you can visit places and collect data about the future rebirth environments, including culture, state, place, and perhaps even details about specific family you anticipate to be born again in the future).

In case you are still not convinced and wonder whether we make the afterlife really real through such practices, I think, this is not a particularly good question to ask, because the definition of the real is something that we invent ourselves.

You still wonder if it makes sense at all to believe in this? I think, given all our knowledge about the world and ourselves, it makes sense to believe in the afterlife. Furthermore, to my mind, rather than asking of whether the paradise is real or not, a better question to ask is what is better to believe, the existential nothing or the paradise? Do we want our kids to grow with no hope for afterlife, or we better give them such an opportunity?

Existential trap of nothing

When the first excitement about the multiverse is gone, and the dust settles, you may start to feel deep-down inside some unsettling and unnerving feeling that something important is missing, that something is not quite right about this theory, particularly when we talk about people inhabiting this multiverse. The problem comes from the acknowledgement of the fact that any particular SW in our multiverse is finite, in a sense that we can always go beyond it. We have a capacity to transcend a particular storied world and step outside it. Whatever SW we find in that transcended realm, this new realm can in turn be transcended and abandoned, because it is also just one more story in the infinite collection of stories.

All this is good except there are trap-worlds in this collection - the worlds claiming their absolute right on a single, their own truth which does not acknowledge the existence of other worlds. Once you get there, you are stuck and in general cannot escape from it - the multiverse does not exist for you anymore. However, if you are able somehow, to sneak in some stories about the multiverse or keep some core elements, the acknowledgement of the multiverse, perhaps through some irony and scepticism hidden deep down, inside your heart, then you may have chance to get out of that trap.

The worst trap you may run into during such journey is the world of the existential nothing. You may hop from one storied world to another many times but eventually you will end up into the world of nothing – the world, which is beyond any story and any language. And once you get there, you will have all the angst and nausea peculiar to existentialism. Our multiverse, by the mere fact that we represent it a kind of a collection of compartments which need to be placed somewhere, is suspended in nothingness which encompasses the multiverse of stories and is an integral and irreducible part of it. Another interpretation of nothing is that of a null, which is present in any world and where we can occasionally slip in. Either way, the challenge we face is that of making sense out of this empty, cold, dark and meaningless world of nothing.

It is not a coincidence that one of the key proponents of the epistemological relativism encouraging our developments, Richard Rorty, took seriously existentialism and was particularly attracted to the line of thought and interpretations by Martin Heidegger, one of the founding fathers of the existentialism. The multiverse theory and existentialism both share the same problem of nothingness. Can you move beyond that nothing into another storied world? It is not obvious you can, because in order to make such a move, you will have to have intentions, desires, hope, will, or something like that, but there is nothing in the world of existentialism to provide you with such resources. All other worlds, you may have believed so far, according to Sartre, are just examples of “bad faith” (ref …). You must abandon any hope and face harsh reality - the meaningless world where nothing has purpose and nothing has value.

I believe, most people have had that experience of nothingness when they were sucked into abyss by some random misfortune or a bad weather. Likely, every time they get there, most people are able to get out because they are attached to their stories and practices that push them to the surface. So, perhaps, we can write up such stories for sizmarians too - the myths, the legends, highlights, you follow without much thinking involved. May be... On the other hand nothing in the multiverse is immune to doubts, and sizmarians are known to be suspicious of random stories – they always seek for hard practical evidence to prove such stories true.

Note also that the world of nothing within the body of our multivers theory is a contradiction, because there is no story in nothing, but just only an object. In object-oriented programming there are abstract classes which never instantiate. In the world of nothing the reverse is true - we have an object, a being, with no underpinning class (story). We have a hint here that there could be something preceding a story, something beyond the language, clean and pure being - nothing. The fact that this existential nothing is filled with angst and fear could be attributed to a bad luck. If it were Buddhists instead of the western Europeans to intuit that existential nothing first, then, perhaps, instead of the angst and fear we would associate it with a pure joy or nirvana.

Anyway, the way existentialists resolved this impasse was by postulating a hero, a man who can step up, and create the ground in a vacuum, the ground to support himself and others. He is a hero because he takes responsibility and he himself is the first and the ultimate cause and reason for his actions. He is the one who instantiates out of the nothing the meaning and the purpose of our lives in this meaningless world. So, in a way, the thesis of the absolute nothingness is an exaggeration. The absolute nothing means death and no alive people. As long as we are alive, there is meaning, and it does not reside outside, in the external world, but inside us. We as leaving beings can postulate and instantiate it. We always have it inside, and, hence, we are never alone in the world of nothing. Nothing does not really exist because we exist.

I think, we need such a hero in our multiverse too. Or perhaps, if you are tired of heroes or do not feel like having the whole world on your shoulders, then some other stuff we can hang on. And that something must reside beyond the language, because the world of nothing dissolves all words, strips out all the meaning they may have, and leaves behind just an angst and nausea (well, at least, according to existentialists).

Do we know an entity which resides beyond the language and yet is still capable of supporting us? Remember that one of the reasons for building a multiverse was to achieve a sustainable well-being for the inhabitants of that multiverse. The question that follows is if the well-being is so important for us, shall we leave it on the mercy of some contingent factors we often cannot control, or we better define it as a prior self-sufficient entity which either permeates the whole multiverse or resides within a human being. The well-being which is always there, constant and independent of any circumstances so that we can always rely on it when needed. Let’s introduce such a prior and sustainable well-being.

A prior goodness

In recent years physicists introduced dark matter and dark energy to their theories of the universe to explain the rotation of galaxies. No one ever seen these dark matter and dark energy, and no one knows exactly what they are but having them postulated reconciles observations with theory (i.e. equations of physics). Otherwise this theory just does not make sense.

Perhaps, analogously we need to introduce a prior-goodness instrumental to our well-being, so that we can keep going in this weird world full of pain and suffering and very little meaning (if any) attached to our lives by nature. Imagine a five-dimensional universe where one dimension is for time, three dimensions are for space and one more extra dimension is allocated for a goodness. This goodness permeates the whole world at any distance and for any time. It always exists regardless circumstances and underpins our capacity for a prior sustainable well-being. Just pause here for a minute and think about it –
A PRIOR GOODNESS.
The GOODNESS which lasts forever. However bleak and miserable your life, there is always light and hope, you only need to see it.

Such a prior GOODNESS (and sustainable well-being that follows) must be a game changer. They make all our theories about afterlife, before life, meaning of life, etcetera, pretty much surplus. Blah-blah-blah - all these words mean nothing when you are in a state of a prior sustainable well-being. Whatever was driving us to build these theories, whether it was a stick or a carrot or both, it does not matter anymore because, having this state of the prior sustainable well-being established, gets us to the destination point immediately bypassing all the intermediate steps.

Sizmarians, of course, would love this challenge – designing and instantiating such a prior GOODNESS and well-being. The goodness which may have never existed earlier but becomes the most salient feature of the universe as soon as instantiated out of nothing.

Now, before we go any further, let’s clarify whether such a prior GOODNESS and a sustainable well-being are possible at all. Does it make sense to talk about a prior sustainable well-being in the world of tragedy and sorrow?

I think it does, for such simple reason that we know people who live in this state of a prior well-being. People who never fail to hope for a better future and have the courage to stand for the right course despite everything being against it. People who have wisdom and sense of the justice. People who love and care and can lead by example. I believe, also kids can feel this prior goodness, and because of that goodness they belong to paradise.

A prior sustainable well-being is clearly not happiness but must be instrumental to it. It is likely to be associated with the notion of a good life, but it is not a good life because the life cannot be good a priory. It is a state of a being which is always present, like another dimension, a low frequency signal, modulating all our thoughts, feelings, actions. Not everyone can perceive it, but those who do, live in a different world.

Now, to make it clear, by no means this prior well-being, which is independent of the external circumstances, by no means it makes people ignorant to the suffering of others or makes them immune to experiencing such feelings by themselves. The pain, the sorrow, the sadness still exist in their lives. The only difference introduced by the prior well-being is a capacity for such people to always see light however dark times they live through.

Virtue practice

A prior GOODNESS and sustainable well-being are features characteristic of the storied-multiverse (otherwise you just cannot live in this environment). The well-being is referring to a particular state of being attributed to sizmarians and offering then an immediate experience of the GOODNESS characteristic of the multiverse. This sustainable well-being is also instrumental to the good life of sizmarians.

Once the shape and the taste of the cookie is known, we need to know a recipe to cook it. We need to know practices instantiating either a prior goodness or a good life (at least for sizmarians). The notion of the good life is closely associated the notion of virtues. Indeed, good life is often defined as a life of the virtuous person. Hence, we take virtuous behavior as practices underpinning good life and sustainable well-being. Using the language of the GISO machinery, the storied multiverse is to be instantiated via sizmarians practicing virtues.

How exactly they do it? And what character traits the sizmarians call virtues?

THe list of virtues varies across cultures and belief systems, some items overlapping and some not. Virtuous behavior is often associated with some promised goods be it a salvation, or resurrection, or a good life, honor, respect of the community etc.

What does it mean - to be a virtuous person in a multiverse?

At least two lines of reasoning, depending on the mode of the sizmarian's embedding into the multiverse, can be presented here. THe light embedding into the multiverse, implies inclusion into a traditional culture and elements of the storied-multiverse added to it. In this case sizmarians share traditional set of virtues, augmented with some features specific to multiverse (such as awareness of other worlds and respect of the inhabitants of these worlds). THe heavy embedding into the multiverse, implies a distinct sizmarian culture, pretty much insulated from influences by other cultures, and having its own set of virtues, some of them distinct from the traditional one.

Another point to make here is whatever the mode of the embedding, sizmarians believe they are responsible for creating and maintaining everything in this multiverse. THey take care of their own self by fostering virtues via self-improvement. THey care also about community, and look after the environment, afterlife, and gods.

We have just scratched the surface here, and much more can be said about the prior goodness and the corresponding practices. Analogously we could have introduced and discussed a prior beauty. We have missed completely the role our feelings and emotions play in our lives. However, I believe, such analysis is most productive when it is accompanied by practices which might open for us new directions hard to perceive from a purely theoretical considerations.

Multiverse Residents: character types

Householders

They are inhabitants of the SW worlds. They are owners, they have their own storied worlds where everything has to be cleaned, ordered, and ensured. Their believes must be solid, reliable, and comfortable. They are happy to move from one universe to another if needed, but they hate existential vacuum and nothingness inherent to such transitions. They can refine, adjust, improve, make it better and even much better. They can break some parts and rebuild it, but they never break the whole structure, and they never start from scratch. They are good at maintaining established order. They are happy with what they have and do not approve revolutions. They are reliable, solid, and happy. They enjoy their lives, and when time comes pass away into another realm, and continue to live happily ever after. They have achieved the goal, a sustainable well-being. They may not have experienced a bliss which lasts for a second and comprises eternity, they may not be aware of this dimension at all, they have heard about it, but they do not care and live it to crazy artists.

Sizmarians (travelers, nomads, migrants)

Sizmarians are multiverse people who may live in one of the established storied-worlds but they don't fully belong there and can leave it anytime moving to another world. They belong to multiverse populated by thousands of storied-worlds and filled with an existential void in between. During the transition from one world to another to survive cold empty space separating storied-worlds, sizmarians rely on a prior sustainable well-being - a state of being characteristic of the multiverse travelers.
The term "prior" here means this well-being is a particular instance which exists prior to any abstract form - it does not require any description to become instantiated. The term "sustainable" means it lasts - it is not an ephemeral fluctuation, it is not an exception from the rule.
Without such a prior sustainable well-being the travel across the multiverse becomes very difficult, almost impossible, like swimming across the ocean with no ship.

Migrants and refugees could be prototype sizmarians, lost in the translation and having one foot in one culture and another foot in another. They think they belong to both but they don't - they could be new species which belong to multiverse.

Sizmarian features:

Renouncers (artists)

An artist is a crazy man, a joker who lives in a split of a second. He does not care about cosy, comfortable worlds of householders and sizmarians. He does not care about eternity because every second of his life is filled with its own infinity. It is a transient stuff, a flower, a bliss, which is so powerful and so destructive. He denies these clumsy worlds and structures. He laughs out and makes fun out of those dead serious people hanging to their structures, and scared to death of anything new and unrestrained.



Lambda people

The lambda people don't care about the human nature, or the structure of the universe for other reasons. They are defined by one function, nothing else matter. Some of them are obsessed with the acquisition of wealth, or achievements in sport, or professional career. Some may dedicate their lives to helping others, some may focus exclusively on themselves.

Survivalists are subspecies of lambdas. Like sizmarians, they can live in existential vacuum. Unlike sizmarians who need to instantiate a prior goodness to survive this vacuum, survivalists rely on their basic instincts - eat, sleep, procreate - the definition of their happiness. They don't need anything beyond that to live happily. Survivalists could be very materialistic and brutal. They live the world of meaningless particles where such notions as justice, beauty, goodness are just empty words. According to them, we live in a jungle where only the strongest survive.



Multiverse Services and Communities

Shuttle - team of experts cruising passengers from one SW to another (from man as it is to man as it ought to be)

Semi-Autonomous Social System (SASS) - a more permanent social structure made out of experts with the complementary sets of skills and their families (modern reincarnation of tribes).



In this chapter, we defined the multiverse as a collection of universes with a partially ovelapping dimensions. We highlighted psychological transitions as a means of the muliverse travel. We have also introduced sizmarians - the inhabitants of the multiverse, which instantiate and maintain this multiverse via practices. A prior sustainable well being of the sizmarians (or a good life) is considered a feature characteristic of this storied multiverse. In other words, the main function of the multiverse (the key reason we have created it) is a prior sustainable well-being of the inhabitants of the multiverse (or good life). Virtues define practices instrumental to such a prior well-being (good life).