Originally I inferred that there are infinite universes in the multiverse, coming from the real-world multiverse theory. However, I'm not sure that's the case in Sentinels.
Christopher and Adam have occasionally referred to some non-infinite number of universes (e.g. "hundreds") when referring to specific things, like the number of Hakas there used to be. We also have Oblivaeon apparently trying to erase all realities by one literally one at a time--an impossible task when starting with infinity even for an omnipotent and immortal being--and they implied that La Comodora condensed all the Hakas by visiting every world that had a Haka in it and merging them out of existence. Same thing with the other La Capitans--they suggested that La Capitan "split" herself dozens of but not infinitely many times, and if there were infinite multiverses per the real-world theory, she'd be splitting herself off into infinitely many copies, constantly, regardless of how heavily she meddled in time.
On the other hand, if universes only occasionally split off from each other, you probably wouldn't have nonsense like the Animalverse, since there's no sane point at which it could have split off from another one unless you really had infinite possibilities. (I'm still not 100% positive whether the Animalverse is real--they sure made it sound like they weren't joking but maybe they didn't think it through all the way.)
I'm sure I could find more oddities if I reviewed every podcast, but that's one reason I'm posting about this; I'm sure you fine folks will remember more arguments for and against. Anyone want to help clarify?
Yeah, I noticed that and was going with "comics". As with the real multiverse theories, they are constantly splitting in the game meta-theory, but the question of whether there are finitely many, countably infinitely many, or uncountably infinitely many still makes perfect sense, and I don't know the answer.
Compare to the incursions in Marvel's recent Secret Wars thing, where it was possible for everything there to also collapse into each other even though they're theoretically infinite universes too.
There’s been a few fictional Multiverses that I know of, I’m not sure if any of them have been literally infinite though, they’ve all always had what is literarily useful at the time.
Storytelling trumps fact when it comes to fiction and a multiverse is likely to be something that gets a little squiffy there with the details because of it.
I think taking it as either “this exists because reality splits at certain points and creates a new universe” or “there are actually infinite universes inclusive of all the issues involved around there being infinite anything” is taking the concept way more literal than superhero comics were ever intended to be.
I’ve always taken this multiverse to exist in much the same way as the ones I’m aware of - there’s theoretically potentially infinite universes but that really means there’s just a little bit more of them than what the readers know of at any given moment so that the writers can add a new one in when they feel like it.
Amount of universes in the multiverse = known universes+X, where X equals Ehhh…
I think the branching points and natural destruction of times are the keys here.
Why are there not infinite Aata's? Because Aata can only exist under a specific set of branching circumstances (the maori people must exist first of all, and their island has to exist, and Animal Haka would not techinically be an Aata so that probably plays a big role in it). In addition, any timeline that is too similiar, say that the only difference is whether or not Aata was born left handed or right handed, is too close together and will naturally collide and merge, destroying one time and leaving another in it's place. Also, timelines which are exactly oppposite of each other seem to destroy one another, a la the Iron Legacy Timeline as discussed.
So, for a branching point to create a stable timeline, it has to be a big event, and there are only so many big events in a single persons life that could create a branching timeline. Then, selection determines how many of those branching points end up different enough to last a long time. And, those events cannot create the exact opposite result in every circumstance or things become too unstable.
Things like the animalverse or something similiar could start from a really far back branching point, and we could have eerie similiarities like a speedster who is a scientist just like Tachyon, but they are not versions of each other in the multiverse sense because they are far too different. No set of decisions could have made Meredith Stinson a literal Lab Rat, but a LAb Rat scientist who was female could ahve ended up on a very similiar course to Meredith Stinson. They are seperate entities who just appear to be related because we are looking at a specific set of attributes which could be shared.
And, what Maria Helena was doing was first of all only possible because she is PAradox immune, but also was causing massive problems because she was essentially making a giant knot out of various timelines. Splitting herself far too often, making herself far too similiar to herself, and then cross-pollinating those timelines. So, she was operating in a way that was placing a lot of strain on the system, because the system is "designed" to prevent too many timelines that are too similiar from existing.
And that is my best shot so far at understanding this.
Honestly, one of the great fictional depictions of an infinite multiverse is Scalzi’s Old Man’s War. In that series, the way faster than light travel works is sort of like the way Visionary time-travels: a ship zaps itself into another universe where it already is where it wants to go. Most probably, the other universe differs from this one by the positions of a few elections or something, so you effectively have faster than light travel. In the universe you left, a vessel from some third universe probably pops in to replace you.
You have the existential crisis of leaving your whole universe, but effectively, everything seems the same because the differences turn out to be insignificant on a macroscopic scale.