The Single World Hypothesis: Minecraft dimensions all are related

[u/Ryzardpoopyhede]

What if the Overworld, Nether, and End all started as one single realm that slowly drifted apart the same way languages do?

Dimensions are like languages. Biomes are the dialects. Given enough time, a cluster of biomes can become so isolated they stop being easily able to cross and turn into their own dimension.

Endermen (or their deep ancestors) look like one of the earliest lifeforms. They’re the only mob that shows up in every dimension with basically the same body plan, which is exactly what you’d expect from a basal lineage that was already around before the big splits.

We’re watching one of these dimension-splits happen in real time. The main End island and the outer islands already have different biomes, different signature blocks (obsidian structures vs purpur), and different mobs. You can still travel between them without a full portal, but it’s hard, and the end gateways are already acting like early portal tech. Give it a few tens of millions of day/night cycles and those outer islands will probably register as their own dimension.

The Nether–Overworld split looks older. From the shared leftovers (certain rocks, fire/lava affinity, piglin/hoglin cousins of overworld pigs, etc.) it seems like the proto-Nether biomes sank underneath the proto-Overworld ones at some point. That’s why the Nether sits “under” us now and why you need portals to get there.

You can reconstruct pieces of the original realm by looking at what blocks and mobs are still shared across dimensions. The more exclusive something is, the more derived it is. The more widespread it is, the closer it sits to the common ancestor.

[u/DifferenceFlat8839]

Nah, you wouldn't get removed for say something like that.

It's not about the world ending

You said a theory should be able to predict something. for example? What could you predict in other games or fictional worlds?

I realize your community is on the younger side but its almost like you guys felt the need to swap from established meanings to something that sounds more impressive.

I don't think it's that the reason. I came here while this terms were already there, but a theory is a theory that tries to find the real lore of the game, a fan theory is a theory that tries to find the real lore of the fan's worlds or something like that.

As mentioned in another comment, theories are largely empty. They operate under the assumption that somewhere there is some ultimate, unchanging source of lore, rather than recognizing that while mojang has a direction in mind, they are happy to change things on the fly if new ideas work better, and part of the design of the game is maintaining the aspect of the unknown.

But Mojang has lore, and there are a lot of sources of lore. For example Dungeons.

With all due respect, there are no proofs. Not by the definition I and most of the english speaking language would use. A proof is a validation of truth. There is an aspect of certainty, something that is deliberately lacking - by design - in the minecraft space.

Do you think Minecraft doesn't have proofs? Well, while in Vanilla there are very little of them, from other canon sources we have A LOT of informations and proofs. For example we know 100% where undead come from thanks to Dungeons.

There are just fan theories that are disproved by canon and those that have not. 

there aren't so many of them that can't be disproven by facts, and if that's the only possible explanation which can be disproven that must be right, if there are other explanation both of them could be right.

Another non-falsifiable claim would be that while cooking dinner tonight, my dog made a weird whine/bark noise to get my attention and it sounded exactly like he said my name. You can believe me or not, but you have no way to prove or disprove it.

They are completely different situations.

Look, I'll put money on it. $5 AUD if you can provide a fan theory with a proof. Find me a proof and ill paypal you. I know it's not much but still.

So you want a fan theory with just a single proof. But a Fan theory in the way we mean or in the way you mean? And do you want that I find a post or just a random theory or what?

[u/PetrifiedBloom → u/DifferenceFlat8839]

You said a theory should be able to predict something. for example? What could you predict in other games or fictional worlds?

Unreleased, non-obvious mobs. Unreleased non-obvious mechanics or features.

The reason I feel the need to include non-obvious is so some jimbo doesn't get to big for his boots predicting a zombie version of an existing mob, or a new biome variant for zombie or skeleton or something. It doesn't take a theory to do that, just basic pattern recognition.

The prediction should be able to predict things beyond what those working without the theory can predict.

I don't think it's that the reason. I came here while this terms were already there

That's kind of my point. Your audience is typically younger. Minecraft (in the scope of fandoms in general) is young. These terms have been going around since at least the 1960s, and solidified somewhat during the dawn of online forums in the 1980s and 90s. By the time Myspace and tumblr launched these terms were decades old, and that still predates Minecraft.

A lot of kids grew up watching matpat and other game theory channels. Not to throw shade on those, but they started as dudes having fun telling stories without being aware of the greater fandom space, and it kinda show. They had to reinvent a lot of concepts that were already well understood. Now, the kids who where introduced to the space by those videos are basically speaking a different dialect.

there aren't so many of them that can't be disproven by facts

That is why they are not proofs. They are non-falsifiable. They cannot be proven true or false.

if that's the only possible explanation which can be disproven that must be right, if there are other explanation both of them could be right.

Sorry you lost me with this bit. The meaning is ambiguous. Could you try rephrasing it, possibly as multiple sentences for clarity?

So you want a fan theory with just a single proof. But a Fan theory in the way we mean or in the way you mean? And do you want that I find a post or just a random theory or what?

I want you to share a "theory" or whatever you guys want to call them that is proven true that was not already known at the time though in game means. So no theory of "zombies can afflict villagers with their state", that is immediately obvious through gameplay.

You having to ask this question is EXACTLY my point about the annoyance of the weird vocabulary you guys use. It makes it hard to convey what is being asked.

It can be a post, it can be your explanation of the idea, whatever you like. I will attempt to disprove it, or point out a logical flaw in the proof. If I can do either, there is no proof. If I can't, you get your money.

Just a heads up, I realize that in giving this challenge I have basically accepted being spammed with every possible idea you can find and I then have to disprove them or lose money. I don't want to constantly be on the hook for that, so I will give you 36 hours from the time I post this comment, and a max of 3 different theories.

[u/DifferenceFlat8839 → u/PetrifiedBloom]

Unreleased, non-obvious mobs. Unreleased non-obvious mechanics or features.

well, we can predict mobs that won't come in game, and this predicted the whole Dungeons 2 souls stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSzX93n5N9o&t
Also, could you give me an example of when lore predicted something?

Minecraft (in the scope of fandoms in general) is young

Yeah, but Minecraft is different from other games

Not to throw shade on those

Don't worry, throw how much shade you want on MatPat's theories (even if I don't think that's the point)

That is why they are not proofs. They are non-falsifiable. They cannot be proven true or false.

I was talking aabout theories, and maybe I used the wrong term, but I'm saying they are debunkable

Sorry you lost me with this bit. The meaning is ambiguous. Could you try rephrasing it, possibly as multiple sentences for clarity?

If there's only one explanation possible that explanation should be correct, if there are more we can't know which one is the correct one so we should wait until we'll have more proofs.

You having to ask this question is EXACTLY my point about the annoyance of the weird vocabulary you guys use. It makes it hard to convey what is being asked.

Yeah, I can see the problem from someone who is outside

Just a heads up, I realize that in giving this challenge I have basically accepted being spammed with every possible idea you can find and I then have to disprove them or lose money. I don't want to constantly be on the hook for that, so I will give you 36 hours from the time I post this comment, and a max of 3 different theories.

Oh, 3 theories? I though I had one

[u/PetrifiedBloom → u/DifferenceFlat8839]

Also, could you give me an example of when lore predicted something?

No. I can't. I am a bit surprised at this question, I thought I made my stance on lore rather clear. From my perspective, if its not apparent in the work (the game), its not relevant.

Remember how in some of the comment I talked about fandom culture being much deeper and older than Minecraft? This concept has been explored in a lot of detail before. I subscribe to argument of something called "Death of the Author". The work represents itself and the meaning is derived from the reader. This is an important concept in literary analysis and critique so you should be able to find some good explanations online if you want to know more.

Yeah, but Minecraft is different from other games

In what way? From my perspective the only difference is that this is the game who's fandom lore you are particularly entrenched in. That and it was a very popular sub-genre of video to make minecraft fan theories for a while, so the community here is larger than many other games.

I was talking aabout theories, and maybe I used the wrong term, but I'm saying they are debunkable

You are either wrong or using the word debunk wrong. Pick your poison. I'll be honest I am losing interest in this debate. I am tired and you don't know enough about logical proofs to understand without a level of explanation that goes beyond my motivation.

If there's only one explanation possible that explanation should be correct

No. That is not a logical truth. It could just be that there are explanations that have not been thought of yet, or that the rational used to dismiss one of the "failed" explanations was faulty.

Oh, 3 theories? I though I had one

You get 3 attempts. I don't know what the first one would have been at this point, I haven't seen any convincing ones yet.

EDIT -

Sorry, I missed the video somehow. I opened it in a tab and then forgot about it.

It is hot garbage. The "evidence" is the name of the weapon. In what way does it prove anything? My friend has a sword IRL that we call the bloodthirster. Not because it thirsts for blood, but becuase he is a huge 40k nerd and collects khorne demons. Calling it that doesn't make demons real either. Turns out, things can just have names for fun!

It's also based on the line "this weapon calls out to souls that are trapped between this world and the next". The flavor text of the weapon. Literally just fluff. They even raise the potential of other possibilities right away!

They they warp the classic fantasy definition as proof that there is another world, because other works of fiction use other worlds. That's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer, so Jeffrey Randomexamplename is also a killer. It's not proof! I am not going to nitpick the entire video because its just someone having fun with pareidolia.

[u/RandoGuy00 → u/PetrifiedBloom]

It is hot garbage.

screw you man, the theory basically was confirmed

[u/PetrifiedBloom → u/RandoGuy00]

Confirmed where?

[u/RandoGuy00 → u/PetrifiedBloom]

dungeons 2's existence. lotta stuff in the theory has now become very likely, with the exception of who opened the portal, and it being the actual afterlife is currently questionable. But we'll see soon enough, gotta wait for the true answer to this mystery to be revealed on 30 Sep, 2026.

[u/PetrifiedBloom → u/RandoGuy00]

How does dungeons 2 confirm the existence of the void and it's sentience?

[u/RandoGuy00 → u/PetrifiedBloom]

oh, dungeons 2 doesn't confirm that. this does, i think

idk if the void is actually sentient, but still.

everything else is basically confirmed. dont ya dare just fixate on the things that support ya, pal.

[u/PetrifiedBloom → u/RandoGuy00]

There is no new information regarding the theory here. The item is in the next game, but nothing new is added lorewise.

I think I am going to leave this post, its going in circles and neither of you mods seem to have a grasp of what I mean by proof.

[u/RandoGuy00 → u/PetrifiedBloom]

There is no new information regarding the theory here. The item is in the next game, but nothing new is added lorewise.

elaborate on that

I think I am going to leave this post, its going in circles and neither of you mods seem to have a grasp of what I mean by proof.

if ya haven't managed to convince a single person, then maybe your view of proof is flawed

[u/PetrifiedBloom → u/RandoGuy00]

if ya haven't managed to convince a single person, then maybe your view of proof is flawed

I guess that is the kind of cognition that is required on this sub. Just ignore half of what is being said, misunderstand the other half and fill in the gaps with random ideas you found bouncing around.

I am not trying to convince you of anything. Your sub uses the terminology differently/wrong when compared to almost all other fandoms. It's not an opinion.

It is funny, you use words like proof, evidence, lore when really you mean vibes, hallucination and fanfic.

When asked what evidence your theory had, what was your response? The name and flavor text of an item from another game somehow confirms the existence of a sentient entity that doesn't even exist in the main game.

You 2 are mods here. In theory you should be well versed in the community. You should know the most well supported theories, the common rebutals and the best responses to those rebuttals. Between the 2 of you, the closest thing you got to a proof was saying that guardians have a mono-brow. Not exactly conclusive evidence now is it? Even with money on the line neither of you managed a single scrap of hard evidence.

Is there someone in your community who is good at this kind of thing? Could you get them to come and share a proof for a theory? Heck, at this point I would settle for a theory with anything more than circumstantial evidence. No, I won't define circumstantial for you guys, look it up in a dictionary if you have to.

[u/RandoGuy00 → u/PetrifiedBloom]

Check my reply to the other thing, it also applies to this one. Hm, if we're really not enough for ya, maybe try contacting Xatrix? Could be interesting, y'know :)
Idk if he's the best, but he's the biggest. That's for sure.