Parallel Universes Are Real 1066
It's in Scientific American, it must be true. This month's cover story:
Parallel Universes.
"The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 1028 meters from here." That number's a lot bigger than 10 to the 101.42 meters, which are the farthest observable objects in what we call our universe. And anyway, twin or not, anyone outside my light-cone is dead to me. That's just a rule I have. If you're skeptical of the multiverse, go read our discussion of a similar article from
two days ago.
I don't know about your eyes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't know about your eyes (Score:5, Informative)
Multiverse to Nadaverse to Omniverse (Score:5, Interesting)
Up to this point in nearly all discussions of extreme/speculative tech what we are trying to do is maximally stretch our imagination as to what is possible within the realm of currently known scientific law. And for those of us who've been frequenting transhumanist circles for any period of time, we know the current limits of science portend a lot - uploading, indefinite lifespans, traversible wormholes, jupiter brains, basement universes, etc.
Now lets assume that our current understanding of the known laws of physics are invariable. Lets assume that the Grand Unified Theory really is the grand theory they claim it to be.
I have been engaging in some discussion lately about the begining of the universe, and for the first time (amazingly enough) I pushed the 'Where did it come from' question through as far as it can go. And, not surprisingly, it doesn't go anywhere. No matter how you try to explain the origin of the universe, none of the theories can account for the cause of it. What caused the big bang? Where did 'God' come from? etc.
From this, i concluded that there cannot be a begining. If there was a begining, then something must have caused that begining, and so something was there before the begining.
This doesn't answer anything, but I am yet to see another way around the causality problem (defining something as 'acausal' doesn't solve it, it just dodges it).
Now, linked to this 'where did the universe come from?' problem is, 'Where did the incredible laws, which make our universe a coherent place come from?', which is what I think underlies it all. Once the universe began, it is easy to say 'the laws guided the evolution of everything from there'....but how did the laws come to be? Why are they so perfect? (weak anthropic principle could be an acceptable argument here).
When you think of an omniverse that has no beginning, then we are talking about something that is temporally at least infinite in duration, something ultimately beyond time itself, where concepts of a beginning and an end have no meaning. I think what this also means is that any one set of properties/laws we experience are also ultimately entirely arbitrary. If they are not then we must ask ourselves what meta-laws are behind it governing what types of laws are allowed and which are not? And then we have to ask ourselves where did these metalaws come from? And then meta-meta-laws and so on to infinity. And, not surprisingly, it doesn't go anywhere. No matter how you try to explain the origin of any laws, none of the theories can account for the cause of those laws. From this, I concluded there can be no fundamental laws.
So if there are no fundamental laws, no limts, then everything is possible. If not, why not? And we are right back to an arbitray set of laws with no explanation. And since we are used to applying the metaphor of technology to such things, we could (at least for fun) call such tech based on a lack of laws nada-technology or onto-technology. The technology of reality itself. I like to call it nadatech becuase ulitimatly it's based on nothing... no laws, no limits, nothing at all.
So what do we do with nada- or onto-technology?
Anything. Everything.
Either way, the ultimate lack of any fundamental laws implies that everything is possible and probably already exists exists in a timeless standing quantum probability wave in eternity.
Planet P Blog [planetp.cc] - Liberty with Technology.
Re:Multiverse to Nadaverse to Omniverse (Score:5, Interesting)
I tend to wonder if there aren't different modalities for time. Linear, loop, and radial are the only ones I could find. There are probably others.
The radial one is very interesting to me. Pretty much co-opted from an Ellison story (well, at least I did). A singular event hapening in several different frames of time (kind of the Copenhagen idea in reverse). I muse that Passover might be akin to this (god looking at the world once, but being able to see it at different points in time= omnipotent). I wonder if this is what is really being stated by the multiverse idea.
But we are kind of stuck by the limitations of the measuring device. Kind of the Madelbrot set idea, you can have infinite possibilities within a defined framework, except you can't break free from the boarders. Tempest in a teapot. Maybe there was never a teapot. Maybe we are the teapot.
Maybe there is nothing beyond. We all find out eventually.
Or as I like to put it, you can do whatever you want (except maybe not be you). You just have to figure out how to get there. I think we are well on our way. Onward to the metaverse/panverse.
Re:Multiverse to Nadaverse to Omniverse (Score:3, Interesting)
I kinda like the way Douglas Adams explains all these theories alot simpler. By introducing "probability-dimensions".
It goes like this: If something could have happened, it did, and the results exist. It just happens to be located in a parallell dimension along the "probaility-axises".
Ofcourse that doesn't explain what you were rambling about, the origin of it all and the nature of universal laws, but I actually learned alot of the multi-dimensional theories reading Hitchhikers guide.
It actually s
Re:Multiverse to Nadaverse to Omniverse (Score:4, Interesting)
Your flaw here is that you assume God is a created being. However, in order to be an all powerful god, God must have always existed. This follows the principle of the creator always being greater than the creation. So, to have an omnipotent god, you must also have God be infinite (always existed, always will exist). If time is a man-made creation and God is outside of time (think of time as a fourth dimension with God being "outside the 4-dimensional box") then, for all practical purposes, God is infinite.
Re:Multiverse to Nadaverse to Omniverse (Score:3, Interesting)
Your flaw here is that you assume God is a created being. However, in order to be an all powerful god, God must have always existed.
I actually prefer Issac Luria's view on this whole matter (he was a Jewish mystic living in the 16th century in the town of Sefad (not too far from Jerusalem). He argued that an all-encompasing god could not have allowed room for creation because before creation God would have filled everything. This required th
Re:Multiverse to Nadaverse to Omniverse (Score:3, Informative)
But, beyond that, the question "where did these universes come from" is a very good one, and IIRC, the current hypothesis is that, at the "base level", there's nothing but probability. The universe exploded into being because it was probable it would on some mathematical level, assuming mathematics (and probability, as a subset of mathematics) is a self-generating phenomena... both chicken =
Re:Multiverse to Nadaverse to Omniverse (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't answer anything, but I am yet to see another way around the causality problem (defining something as 'acausal' doesn't solve it, it just dodges it).
Well, no. Cause and effect is a concept that you brain is hired wired to think in terms of and there's no way you can really break out of that. The thing is, to discuss the
Re:Multiverse to Nadaverse to Omniverse (Score:3, Insightful)
From this, i concluded that there cannot be a begining. If there was a begining, then some
Many contradictions (Score:5, Interesting)
Your argument rests on a few assumptions:
I can buy 1 and 2, I don't buy 3.
That said, there are physics models which negate even the concept of linear time. According to these models, past and future do not exist, there is only the ever-evolving NOW. "Beginnings" thus have no meaning, and the universe "always" existed and "always will" exist (I quote those terms because they imply some progression/regression of time which doesn't actually exist in the model, but they are really the only way we can conceive it).
You can find the professor and some of his work on http://edge.org
If you want some more interesting posturing on "beginnings" and logic, please read my post Do beginnings and endings actually exist? [kicks-ass.net]
I think what this also means is that any one set of properties/laws we experience are also ultimately entirely arbitrary. [...]
This is the flaw in your "no fundamental laws" argument. It is circular reasoning: you use the assumption that laws are temporary to prove that there are no fundamental laws. There is no evidence to suggest that laws are temporary thus your argument falls apart.
Furthermore, your "no fundamental law" assertion is essentially equivalent to saying that the only law is: anything can change at any time in any way. Well in that case, at some point the very law that "anything can change" will change and you will then have a universe with immutable laws. One can view this as a contradiction of a fundamental premise, or perhaps as an anwser; perhaps our universe began just like that and then collapsed into the steady state we now see.
Finally, your "no fundamental laws" assertion is incompatible with your belief that causality holds even prior to the beginning of the universe. If there are no fundamental laws, then causality itself need not always apply!
Re:Multiverse to Nadaverse to Omniverse (Score:3, Funny)
So what do we do with nada- or onto-technology?
Anything. Everything.
Oh dear. *looks at the sky, and sees donuts falling from it* It's raining again.
Re:Multiverse to Nadaverse to Omniverse (Score:3, Informative)
Both faith and reason are very important in being human. Science wouldn't advance if the Scientists didn't have faith in theories that haven't been pr
Re:Multiverse to Nadaverse to Omniverse (Score:3, Informative)
We believe that there ar
Re:I don't know about your eyes (Score:5, Funny)
I'm surprised you can see past Uranus!
Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Religion (Score:3, Troll)
I myself don't know what to believe anymore, but even when I was more religious I knew organized religion was bad.
Why should they care anyway, where in the bible does it specifically state there is NOT multiple universes? Theres lots of things that are not in the bible, but it doesn't make then less true.
Stuff like that always makes me mad, like saying if we ever find intelligent li
Re:Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Questions of ontology, epistomology, and teleology are not answered by a simple denial of God. (Neither are they answered by a simple assertion of God, but that's another issue).
My own philosophy tends towards the empirical, and the scientific method indeed has a great track record. But science, by definition, exludes all non-empirical observations. We all, however, have memories of "unreal" experiences. Dreams, fiction, emotions. The experience of self-conciousness. The perception of time.
I would not argue that any non-empirical philosophy is science, but neither would I claim that science is the only rational way of interpreting the phenomena of the universe. People of far greater intelligence than you or I have held deep religious beliefs. It is the height of arrogance to dismiss entire systems of knowledge in such an offhand way.
Also, I would argue, that the effect of religion on society has been been beneficial at least as much as it has been harmful. For example, in medieval Europe, the church was the only social institution that would allow social advancement through education without regard to birth. I do not think we would have modern liberal democratic states without that history. Perhaps you post as an AC because you do not want your shallow ideas examined too closely.
Re:Religion (Score:5, Informative)
I would agree with the ranting AC that some organized religions have caused great harm in the world, but I think that many organized religions are not inherently different from governments or corporations or other large human organizations. Any of those can be a force for good or bad, but "absolute power corrupts absolutely," so the tendency for a powerful organization is to increase its power and abuse it.
There's always a tendency for people and human organizations to become corrupt over time. An example is the Christian church. It started with the coming together of people that had personally experienced Jesus Christ and believed he was the savior of the world. Gradually, the church became larger and more powerful, until it was more a political organization than anything else, splitting along the way into the Eastern and Western churches.
Many people saw the corruption in the church and saw how far it had gotten from true faith in Christ and there was a movement called the Reformation about 500 years ago. Today, many of the denominations formed as a result of the Reformation are as far from the truth as the Catholic church was back then. Only through the blood of Jesus Christ can someone be saved, not through a human institution.
Re:Religion (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some real nuts here who don't even realize that *every* belief system including science has to build on some basis. Let's call them axioms. These axioms may seem reasonable based on experience and verification through social groups, but they are not provable. You have to start with faith (with exceptions) in your eyes, ears, etc, and faith in the scientific method, and faith in Aristotelian logic in order to accept the results of science.
This is not inherently different than having faith that your religious experiences were given to you by your God and are evidence for your religious belief system. (Sartori, being touched by Jesus, whatever).
I of course find science more plausible, but that has a lot to do with my own upbringing and education. I consider it important to show tolerance towards people of almost all belief systems. Based on my own set of axioms, this only excludes people who believe harming others is morally acceptable.
For a more complete version of this argument try out William P. Alston's Perceiving God [amazon.com].
Specifically to the topic organized religion: Organized religion is a social institution, just like a state. Organized religion has often in the past performed many of the roles that a state takes. As such it has been used to justify and organize wars and injustices. This is not a problem inherent in organized religions themselves, but rather in social institutions as a whole. Take as an example, legalized slavery in the South until 1860. Or try out the Haulocaust as an example. People on the fringe may have tried to make religous justifications of these, but in reality it was the state that motivated and carried them out.
Organized religions have also, as often as not, been the victims of state intolerance for a potentially competing social institution. Take as an example, Soviet Russia. Or Turkey under Attaturk. Or Missouri against the Mormons.
Re:Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Axioms differ from faith in that, while both faith and axioms are unprovable, axioms are *disprovable*, in that the axiom that leads to contradictory views may be safely discarded. An act of faith on the other hand cannot be disproven or discarded.
Re:Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
First, note that logic is not an axiom, but that which is applied to axioms. If you don't have logic, than there's no point to axioms, since axioms are only meaningful as part of a logical system.
Second, some axioms are more dopey than others (e.g., whatever the Pope writes is a truth direct from God), and some systems have axioms that allow an end run around logic, thus rendering them void as logical systems.
The only axioms necessary for science are:
1. There exist a class of sentient observers whose observations are commensurate (i.e., essentially interchangeable).
2. Occam's Razor.
Note that 1. must be held by any belief system, or you can't meaningfully communicate with anyone else.
Note also that 2. is violated wildly by bible fundamentalists (e.g., Joshua 10:12-14 interpreted to mean that Joshua literally stopped the sun in the sky!).
Let's not pretend that the inanity of religious literalism is on the same logical footing as science. It is not.
Re:Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Mathematicians have gone to a great deal of trouble since then to prove the usefulness of logical arguments based on a very small set of axioms. Accepting that logic is true is either in itself an axiom, or the afore mentioned set of axioms need to be added to your 2 axioms. These would be (IANAM nor do I have my books from PHIL 305 -- please correct errors):
Re:Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Seen in this light, a religion does not hav
Re:Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
If God has granted us free will, then we have the right to choose our course of action, whether or not it leads to our downfall.
If God stops anything he doesn't want to happen, then we have no free will, our lives are pre-destined, and nothing we do matters, because the end is already pre-ordained.
Taking the latter approach seems to relieve you of any personal responsibility for your actions, does it not?
Re:Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Buddhism and science tie together reasonably well (Score:4, Interesting)
The Buddhist concept of the universe's energy and rebirth of life actually tie in pretty well with science. The belief is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted between types.
That's why Buddhists don't believe you diw and.. that's it, game over. They believe the energy ('lifeforce' for want of a better term) merely transposes into another form of energy, which then may be mix with other energy and turn into other life or matter later on. While scientists would not particularly go for the whole reincarnation game, there is a lot of logic in it, and obviously a lot of anecdotal evidence (how do the child prodigies know stuff they shouldn't know? etc.. how comes some people remember fragments of what happened in the past and then verify it to be true? and so on)
Buddhism also presents the theory of the 'middle way'. That is, it is not good to be swung to one side or another on issues, but to steer a middle path only. Our universe shows that nothing exists in a place that is too cold, or a place that is too hot. Psychology shows major issues with people who are too egotistical and people who have no sense of self esteem. The middle way works in all disciplines. You should not be too lazy, but you should not be a workaholic either. And so on.
Another concept is experimentation, which was prevalent in Buddhism way before modern science. Buddhists do not generally believe anything blindly, the Buddha said that it is unwise to believe what someone says without knowing it is true yourself. Therefore you must experiment and prove your own truths. Yet again, another bond with the modern scientific process. Even the Dalai Lama (as a spiritual head of a branch of the religion) has changed many of his views upon being exposed to the West and our different way of life.
Religions and science may never walk hand in hand, but if you pay attention you can find a lot of close bonds and even areas where religion has helped science, rather than hindered it.
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if you discard reincarnation, Nirvana, various supernatural beings like the "Monkey God" (as seen in the famous classical Chinese book "Voyage to the West" - basically the whole religion. You might as well say Christianity fits with science because there was that flood thing in Genesis and floods have been known to happen.
You are confussed. (Score:5, Insightful)
In countries like Thailand all these influences mixed and thus the Budhism practiced there is different to Budhism in other places with less hindu influence.
Reincarnation and Nirvana are of course all as faux as any religion dogmas.
Re:Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet science has not (to my knowledge) always explained what causes those neurons to fire, has it? Sure, neurons fire because other neurons connected to them fire... that only goes so far.
One of the things that I've found most fascinating is the theory that the mind can influence things at the subatomic level. During the 60s/70s, the USSR did some experiments with people who rumour said had strong psychokinetic abilities (ESP). Now, the Ruskies were into all kinds of bizarre things, they researched things that Western science wrote off as ridiculous.
Anyway, they found some pretty interesting things. Like, they didn't find anybody that could move objects with their mind, or anything like that. But, they did find a few who could apparently alter the rate of nuclear decay. As you're probably aware (you read slashdot after all), subatomic decay is essentially random according to todays science. What they found was that these "psychics" could, in controlled conditions, speed up or slow down a number of a screen that measured decay. I can't recall if they were told what the number meant or not, but they could seemingly control the process at will.
Interesting. Could the mind impose itself onto low level randomness? If so, that could be the missing link between mind and body.
I once saw a documentary with Dr Robert Winston, if you're in the UK you'll probably know who I mean. It described the internals of a neuron quite well, pity I can't remember any of the names. The one thing that struck me though was that a part at the core was described as being in a state of quantum instability - it's small enough to be affected by uncertainty.
If mind can affect quantum probabilities, and our brains are in a state of quantum instability .... aah. You have mind controlling body. Such a thing would answer many questions.
Re:Not really (Score:3, Informative)
Yep, and it goes as far as your sensory input. If you look at the development of neural systems in organisms, you can see the growth from simple neural nets in hydras up to complex information processors in humans. The engineering drive is the same- process input data and control the body. Neurons fire because they're
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, there is a LOT of BS "science" out there... a lot... and I certainly don't want to cast my lot with those faking liars. BUT: The original point that we don't know what happens in the brain, we don't really understand consciousness -- that is certainly isn't getting a fair shake around here. We ARE self-aware. At a different level than the other animals we know of in THIS universe. We do MATH. We observe QUANTUM LEVEL EFFECTS. (I'm guessing we are the first animal on this planet to do that.) We spend 6-8 hours a night DREAMING. We can get measurably better taking PLACEBOS. There are certainly a lot of things about mind/brain/consciousness that we don't know. I don't think spoon benders or psychic hotlines or the like have anything to them at all. But the fact is that YOU exist, you have a brain which shapes your moods, shapes your perception, shapes your store of information
(waits for the flames)
Re:Not really (Score:3, Interesting)
As an engineer, philosopher, occultist, and someone who's taken issue with RealMike, I sincerely resent this statement. I do think, however, that because I prefer rigor to things that "feel deep", many would assume I want proof now in diagram
Re:Buddhism and science tie together reasonably we (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, Don't forget Taoism. It's an 'old' religion too, which certainly doesn't smash with science.
Although, it's not any more of a religion then Buddhism, due to the missing deity.
Re:Buddhism and science tie together reasonably we (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an excellent point. I think you may have answered your own question though. Science has only become revered and far reaching in secular societies.
The other reason is that while Buddhism accepts science and, in some cases, follows it, it is ultimately a faith whose believers are trying to break away from the 'human realm'.
Why do we spend so much time on science and discovery? Even if we made contact with aliens, managed to grow crops on the moon, and all had cellphones, what good is that? When you're dealing with faith, issues of science and technology are almost irrelevant. Buddhists are trying to reach Nirvana, not NYC on their cellphones.
So while Buddhism may comfortably live alongside science, compared with other religions, it does not actively participate in developing it.
Re:Buddhism and science tie together reasonably we (Score:4, Interesting)
Al-Khwarizmi invented algebra around 780 (both "algebra" and "algorithm" are arabic words).The Bagdad physician, al-Razi, (865-925) produced a medical textbook that was the standard throughout the Islamic world. And Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was like the Isaac Newton of the Islamic world, who in 980 was making advances in medicine, physics and philosophy.
Many agree that many of the advances made in the Western World during the renaissance owe their beginnings to the science, math, and rational thought of the Islamic World.
In one of my favorite scenes from Lawrence of Arabia, Lawrence is talking with Prince Feisal of (Saudi) Arabia, the point is made:
Feisal: Do you know, Lieutenant, in the Arab city of Cordoba were two miles of public lighting in the streets when London was a village?
Lawrence: Yes, you were great.
Feisal: Nine centuries ago.
Re:Buddhism and science tie together reasonably we (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you
~The House of Representatives.
So in this universe... (Score:5, Funny)
and I can get a date.
Re:So in this universe... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So in this universe... (Score:4, Funny)
In at least one parallel universe... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In at least one parallel universe... (Score:5, Funny)
Evil Bill Gates (Score:3, Funny)
Video Game Analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Video Game Analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't LSD Great?
ELiTeUI
But Mohammed Al Sahaf says.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But Mohammed Al Sahaf says.. (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone should check out Welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com. [64.39.15.171]
I hope when we find him we give him a talk show on FOX.
Re:But Mohammed Al Sahaf says.. (Score:5, Funny)
This is obvious proof that multiple universes do indeed exist. He just happened to be in the wrong one. QED.
He has a new job (Score:5, Funny)
You can reach him at m_sahaf@marketing.microsoft.com
New Press Release! (Score:3, Funny)
and . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Ace (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ace (Score:5, Funny)
You bastard, I wanted to be the one to make the obscure Red Dwarf reference. You better hope I catch it at the dupe!
Binary assumption on the existence of protons? (Score:5, Insightful)
You might as well say that heaven exists X meters from here because of the probability that there is an equivalent 100 ly radius of space where I exist but my puppy dog is still alive and their is no war and I eat ice-cream everyday.
Man, I am going to have to sleep on this one...
Girls in the Perallel Universe (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Girls in the P[a]rallel Universe (Score:3, Funny)
This doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This doesn't make sense (Score:5, Funny)
hey, someone should make a movie about that... they could call it "the guy who travels into parallel universes to kill himself and get ultimate power"
Pertinent Futurama Quote (Score:3, Funny)
Fry: So there are an infinite number of parallel universes?
Farnsworth: No, just the two.
Bender: Can we go? I'm sick of parallel universe Bender lording his sombrero over me.
Scientific Omnirican (Score:5, Interesting)
I let my subscription lapse a couple of years ago and when I got around to re-subscribing last year I found quite a few unpleasant surprises.
The last page of the old rag was always the Connections column, which was really interesting and entertaining. It's gone.
Gone also are all of the even vaguely scientific articles. There seemed to be a slant towards ridiculous stories on the edge of pseudo-science, much like in Omni magazine (is that in print anymore?). And every issue featured a sensationalist story centered around the threat of terrorism - stories about dirty bombs, biological weapons, new wiretapping technology, etc. It felt like they were desperately trying to attract readers by featuring stories with the same kind of scare tactics that the 11:00 news (which I haven't watched voluntarily in many years) resorts to.
Needless to say, I've let my subscription lapse again. Too bad, I used to really like that mag.
Re:Scientific Omnirican (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Scientific Omnirican (Score:4, Insightful)
The hand-painted cover art was usually much more aesthetically pleasing than today's Photoshop hacks. I've grown somewhat used to the latest format (it doesn't physically grate on my nerves like it did at first), but I still can't say I like it.
They probably feel that they need all of the visual distractions and information tidbits to compete with the Internet. The ironic part is that I often use the Internet to find an experience like the old Scientific American. I type a topic into Google and I find a nice boringly formatted academic paper to read.
Re:Scientific Omnirican (Score:3, Informative)
Heck, I stopped subscribing to Scientific American about ten years ago. I sensed that the publisher was targeting an audience with less scientific background. When I started reading SA it was somewhere between a scientific journal and Popular Science magazine. It seems to have moved closer to Popular Science. That just too "thin and watery" for me.
I still subs
Re:Scientific Omnirican (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah....it's gotten worse, but not quite bad enough to be called sensationalist crap like Omni. But it's certainly awful enough to have made me switch to American Scientist [americanscientist.org]. The Sigma Xi publication delivers some kick-ass articles on all facets of scientific research, focusing mainly (in my view) on physics, math, and meta-research on scientific methods with some astronomy and life sciences thrown in. Lots of CS, too. Comes highly recommended despite its US-centric name.
Re:Scientific Omnirican (Score:5, Funny)
I'm waiting for the day when it's readable by meerkats.
Probabilities and reality (Score:5, Insightful)
So there is a place where everyone on Slashdot is getting laid! Quick, let's fire up the old improbability drive and head out there and join them!
Seriously though, this is no major jump in thinking, and is rather flawed when you stick to the basics. Just because something may be infinite in size does not necessarily mean there are an infinite number of events taking place within that space. There is no such thing as a probability of exactly 1 or exactly 0. That's why we have probability theory in the first place.
Re:Probabilities and reality (Score:5, Funny)
This is a self-contradicting assertion, for if there were no such thing, then that means that the probability of that assertion being false is 0, which would make the statement false.
Logically, probabilities of 1 and 0 exist, somewhere, only they may exist outside our current ability to perceive them.
If I were to take a guess at something having a probability of zero, I'd say it would be something like a statement that was both 100% true and 100% false.
My brain hurts. I'm going to bed.
Re:Probabilities and reality (Score:3, Interesting)
However, when defining a system you have to start with a set of primitive concepts and axioms which govern them. You could say that these primitive concepts are "outside" the system, but really they are the
Another me (Score:3, Funny)
Thundercleze: I want to buy a computer, but I have no idea about these computer things
BB Employee: Well, you're going to need lots of RAM. I can recomend this model to you
Thundercleze: Does that have SD or DDR ram?
BB Employee: What? but I thought...
Thundercleze: Answer the question
BB Employee: I don't know
Thundercleze: McDonalds fired you and your brothers the manager here isn't he?
BB employee: I feel so ashamed
Asuumptions..assumptions and assumptions! (Score:5, Interesting)
- Scientists debate on wether universe is finite or infinite
- There is debate on uniformity of matter also, mostly it is thought that matter is distributed uniformaly over observable space
So the debate lives on! And i guess calling these as parallel universe is a misnomer, this is the same universe, not in another dimension(like we have the in the movie "The One")If my twin is reading this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If my twin is reading this... (Score:3, Funny)
But the important thing is that the theory also predicts that an infinite amount of you guys would've also already written this telling your twin what to do. I applaud your cause, but you're drowning in a sea of infinity!
Re:If my twin is reading this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If my twin is reading this... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey... This is your younger self writing from another universe. I followed your advice and everything was going great. Unfortunately, there was a bit of a snag. Hmm... How can I put this? In your universe, is there a movie called "The Crying Game"?
=)
Acceptable theories (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Acceptable theories (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I hate to break it to you, but most of these sightings usually can be explained. The rest cannot be verified one way or the other because of lack of data. A Joe off-the-street eyewitness is probably one of the worst observers out there. Think back to the classic psychological experiments regarding eyewitnesses in surprise situations. Then
Re:Acceptable theories (Score:3, Insightful)
We will know that we have found it (Score:5, Funny)
when we find a humongous ball of mismatched socks that have traveled through the 4th dimension.
Networking (Score:5, Funny)
David Deutsch's theory (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:David Deutsch's theory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:David Deutsch's theory (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a favorite fuck-with-your-head pop science story I tell to wig people out, I read it in The Illusion of Technique by William Barrett:
Okay, you know about the Heisenburg uncertainty principle -- can't know a particle's position and velocity simultaneously. But, Einstein, the clever fellow, asked "what if there are two particles?" and proceeded to construct an equation that would simulatenously tell you the relative di
Re:David Deutsch's theory (Score:3, Funny)
Weren't those all episodes of "Sliders"?
Key insight (Score:4, Informative)
IMO the most important part of the article, though less headline-catching, is the claim that recent results indicate that our universe may be infinite in both size and mass.
I like that result, though I find it very surprising.
At any rate, it is this fact (or claim) that allows the author to conclude that a "level I" parallel universe exists somewhere. Indeed, an infinite number must exist, if the universe is in fact infinite.
He also offers levels II, III, and IV, which arise from more exotic causes. In Sunday's
A "Simple" Explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Obligatory Reference (Score:3, Funny)
Does that mean if I'm sweeping up a lab after a particularly unsuccessful party and I hook up a improbability generator to a strong brownian motion producer, like, say, a really hot cup of tea, then will I get a really neat spaceship that's shaped like a tennis shoe and piloted by a man with two heads and three arms and has a paranoid android abord with a shooting pain in all the diodes down his left side?
Here's to improbability!
Smoke me a Kipper (Score:4, Funny)
Don't scare me like that, damn it! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't scare me like that, damn it! (Score:3, Funny)
You see a Slashdot article about multiple universes existing, thus substantiating your academic claim that they are unverifiable.
Congrats, it's your lucky day! (Wednesday should repeat your lucky day if all goes as normal.)
Falsifiability (Score:4, Insightful)
So you mean... (Score:4, Funny)
If you were an atom in a sea of cells (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course this wouldn't matter since you would never meet your counterpart.
You'd have a vague idea that maybe the universe was not infinite because perhaps it was one day going to end. But something would tell you that it was somehow cyclic, and it would come back.
So in a sense it would be infinite.
And if you could travel really far, maybe you'd come to the end of the sea of cells. But you'd have to travel so far that you can safely say that your sea of cells is infinite as far as you're concerned.
Ale
Well if the multiverse is real... (Score:3, Funny)
Cause and effect (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Mostly bccause the arguments provided for them, at least on a layperson's level, are arrogant sci-fi that tend to fall into one of two categories. Either they just "assume" that another path is possible, e.g. life never formed and Earth is barren now, or they assume that universes differ through human choice, e.g. you choose not to go to the cinema, or whatever.
The first suffers as it completely ignores why anything happens. This would mean that there are universes created at every moment of time as gravity switches, or elements gain different properties. Why limit what can or can't happen?
The second suffers as it suddenly places the human freedom of choice at the center of its reasoning. This would mean that the human mind/soul/id was somehow *above* physical properties. Would new universes be created if an animal decided to do something differently? How about plants? As the lifefor, gets less complex, this rapidly decends into a form of the first argument - that some things can change, but others can't.
Maybe there's another way to work infinite multiverses into life, but I'm not convinced by anything I've seen so far, even if blinded by science and big numbers.
My 2-layman-pence, anyway.
A fundamental contradiction in the multiverse (Score:3, Insightful)
My bet is 2 or 3.
Re:And, in one of these universes, (Score:5, Funny)
yeah, but that site is called ccolonbackslash.com
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:10^10^1.42? (Score:4, Funny)
10 ^ 1.42 = 26.302679918953819172897987967726
10 ^ 26.302679918953819172897987967726 = 200761262891390934801701916.81189 metres, or to make it a lot easier to read, 200,761,262,891,390,934,801,701.91681189 Canadian kilometres, or in American dollars, about $2.
Re:SciAm, the most credible source of scientific d (Score:3, Informative)
This explanation is not affected by an actually infinite number of stars, as postulated in the article. Even in a universe only as big as the part we can observe, there are a near-enough to infinite number of stars for the purposes of the paradox anyway.