reality ontology infinite universe quantum math

[vamos scorcho]

The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have

a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10 28

meters from here. This

distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does

not make your doppelgänger any less real.

The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume

speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at

least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with

matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most

unlikely events must take place somewhere.

There are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including

not just one but

in-

finitely many that have people with the same appearance, name

and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation

of your life choices.

 

 

 

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf

 

 

 

check out that article. awesome so far.

 

this guy seems like he could be the Carl Sagan of ... quantum physics. or something.

 

 

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

 

 

 

 

pretty inspiring.

[luke viia]

that guy always sounds like he's on the verge of mental collapse when he gets to talking too much.

 

you may find this interesting: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/to-infinity-and-beyond/

[vamos scorcho]

i swear to god i had this vision in high school. i would sit in bed getting really stoned in the silence of my dark room. and i would stare at the ceiling.

 

 

i swear that a voice in my head would guide me through these things. these 'understandings.'

 

real shit. and it could have been just me, guiding myself. some primal understanding in me. probably.

 

 

 

anyway, once, it guided me through this specific parallel universe infinite me's idea.

 

i was given a view of infinity. through the usage of marijuana, in my bed, i was able to directly perceive what reality actually may look like.

 

what 'infinity' may actually look like. travelling through dimensions to see every possibility.

 

the fact that within infinity, everything ever exists. at all times. this is the idea of infinity, right?

 

 

 

 

anyway, the article touches on just that. it's pretty cool. and it's apparently backed up by quantum science!? we'll see...

 

that guy always sounds like he's on the verge of mental collapse when he gets to talking too much.

 

you may find this interesting: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/to-infinity-and-beyond/

 

thanks. i'm new to these articles now. this looks interesting.

 

infinity says, basically

 

that everything you have ever dreamed

 

exists. somewhere.

 

your dreams may be a portal to other dimensions. actually, by definition, they are. in an infinite universe, that is.

[kaini]

something i have learnt in my stay here is that it's a rule of watmm that whenever someone makes a thread that's kinda becoming good, someone else must make the same thread except it's shit

[luke viia]

welcome to the cat box

[kaini]

also vamos is kinda muddling bits of things from various theories here to suit his acid-addled interpretation of things.

nothing wrong with that except people who do it for a living more often than not have the maths to back it up.

 

and his interpretation of the word 'infinite' just makes me want to cry. look up hilbert's hotel.

[vamos scorcho]

something i have learnt in my stay here is that it's a rule of watmm that whenever someone makes a thread that's kinda becoming good, someone else must make the same thread except it's shit

 

lol. want me to tell you what i've learned? because this is the totality of it:

 

 

i've learned that there really do exist people on this planet that actually, honestly give a fuck about THREADS on an internet forum!

 

it escapes me.

 

the worst thing about these people is that they take offense to these threads and then go out of their way to be 'insulting' to other personas.

 

 

go back to the other 'kinda becoming good' thread and talk about morality. i created this because i could give a fuck about morality arguments.

[luke viia]

vamos i think you will find that even the most intelligent people on the planet today understand very little about infinity. i would urge you to avoid putting too much stock into any grand theory that uses something as slippery as infinity as its central concept, as alluring as it may be with all its paradoxes and complete avoiding of all sense

[vamos scorcho]

and his interpretation of the word 'infinite' just makes me want to cry. look up hilbert's hotel.

 

i don't think you can claim to understand infinity any better than anyone else. mathematicians have gone insane trying to make sense of 'infinity'

 

it's almost as much a belief as it is a mathematical concept.

[kaini]

something i have learnt in my stay here is that it's a rule of watmm that whenever someone makes a thread that's kinda becoming good, someone else must make the same thread except it's shit

 

lol. want me to tell you what i've learned? because this is the totality of it:

 

 

i've learned that there really do exist people on this planet that actually, honestly give a fuck about THREADS on an internet forum!

 

it escapes me.

 

the worst thing about these people is that they take offense to these threads and then go out of their way to be 'insulting' to other personas.

 

 

go back to the other 'kinda becoming good' thread and talk about morality. i created this because i could give a fuck about morality arguments.

 

imma take that as you could not give a fuck about morality arguments. and y'know what? neither could i, really. very small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. i'm not trying to be insulting, i'm just saying that you should educate yourself a bit further in these things if you're gonna talk about them (hilbert's hotel! it's a very simple concept at first, but a very very deep concept when you consider it further). your statements using the word 'infinite' in themselves invalidate a lot of what you say.

 

as far as we can tell, the universe seems to have finite dimension. and if it doesn't, the combined factors of 1 - the speed of light and 2 - the expansion rate and age of the universe means that for all intents and purposes for a carbon based lifeform on earth it might as well have a finite dimension. there is a limit, beyond that limit the information in question cannot reach us within the present age of the universe. don't use a word like infinite unless you understand the implications of it, which you clearly do not.

[MAXIMUS MISCHIEF]

friggin stoners

[Boxus]

quantum theory tells us that the size of an observable region is determined by its maximal projection onto extra-systemic space. your idea is irrelevant when the variability of projection lengths causes the individual frame of the object to become unknowable.

[vamos scorcho]

ok. i apologize for responding in the way i did.

 

 

wouldn't it be, i could give a fuck. implying that i currently do not. i could, however i don't. because it is a waste of energy.

 

 

 

 

 

ok forget it, after reading the rest of your post... i understand the implications just fine.

[luke viia]

if you two bastards had any sense of morals you'd be able to keep it civil in the cat box thread.

[vamos scorcho]

quantum theory tells us that the size of an observable region is determined by its maximal projection onto extra-systemic space. your idea is irrelevant when the variability of projection lengths causes the individual frame of the object to become unknowable.

 

if you read the article i posted in the first post which states that 'my' ideas are not 'mine' and that they are more or less commonly accepted, or at the least not considered 'irrelevant' in the scientific community.

 

why do i have to fight people constantly on here who think they're so damn smart?

[kaini]

quantum theory tells us that the size of an observable region is determined by its maximal projection onto extra-systemic space. your idea is irrelevant when the variability of projection lengths causes the individual frame of the object to become unknowable.

 

i just knew someone would bring quantum entanglement and the associated stuff into this. and entanglement totally fucks with my head too. but at least it seems to fuck with everyone's head.

[kaini]

if you read the article i posted in the first post which states that 'my' ideas are not 'mine' and that they are more or less commonly accepted, or at the least not considered 'irrelevant' in the scientific community.

 

{{citation needed}}

 

i can back what i'm talking about up with peer-reviewed journals and the like.

 

Every time I've written ten mainstream papers, I allow myself to indulge in writing one wacky one, like my Scientific American article about parallel universes.

[vamos scorcho]

the article is scientific american. i don't know how well respected they are.

 

 

 

[kaini]

the article is scientific american. i don't know how well respected they are.

 

 

 

 

Every time I've written ten mainstream papers, I allow myself to indulge in writing one wacky one, like my Scientific American article about parallel universes.

 

also, you're actually adopting the opposite viewpoint from me, and in a way hilbert.

you're assuming the universe is infinite and therefore all things are possible. hilbert demonstrated infinity and people since then have used this in conjunction with other ideas regarding the finity/infinity of the universe to demonstrate the opposite.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[vamos scorcho]

i assume he means 'wacky' in terms of 'something i am passionate about but which is generally not well understood at this point in time'

 

 

 

he goes on to say more or less that the multiverse could be equated to 'round earth' or 'black holes' and other things which may have been considered wacky at previous points in history.

 

 

 

 

this stuff is beyond me personally, like just about everything quantum related. it's definitely inspiring me to try and learn more. i've failed previously to read stuff by Hawking and even just beginners ... cat box tree things.

 

 

cat box tree thingz

[kaini]

i assume he means 'wacky' in terms of 'something i am passionate about but which is generally not well understood at this point in time'

 

he means 'wacky' in terms of 'something that is remotely possible, but not probable'. and i agree with him.

 

 

this stuff is beyond me personally, like just about everything quantum related.

 

[/thread]

[vamos scorcho]

Yet the borderline between physics and metaphysics is

defined by whether a theory is experimentally testable, not by

whether it is weird or involves unobservable entities. The frontiers of physics have gradually expanded to incorporate ever

more abstract (and once metaphysical) concepts such as a round

Earth, invisible electromagnetic fields, time slowdown at high

speeds, quantum superpositions, curved space, and black holes.

Over the past several years the concept of a multiverse has joined

this list. It is grounded in well-tested theories such as relativity

and quantum mechanics, and it fulfills both of the basic criteri

of an empirical science: it makes predictions, and it can be falsified. Scientists have discussed as many as four distinct types

of parallel universes. The key question is not whether the multiverse exists but rather how many levels it has.

 

 

 

 

?

 

 

jesus Kaini. fuck off. you dull prick. you're in here to argue and have been since the very first post.

 

[kaini]

i agree with you there; a lot of the ideas demonstrated by quantum physics (which, to clarify, deals with the very small, not the very large) are fucking insane.

you can alter the outcome of an experiment by observing it? that's WIZARDRY!

 

but it's true and anyone can verify it with the relevant equipment.

 

that's why science is awesome.

 

 

of course i'm in here to argue. all of science is based on people arguing.

if no-one ever argued, we'd still think that the world was flat and people would still be burnt at the stake for suggesting the earth went around the sun.

 

[Dragon]

I have a theory about parallel universes, this seems as good a place as any to post it.

 

Outside our particular universe is the rest of space, which mainly consists of emptiness. There is an infinite field of empty space, some of which is occupied by parallel universes.

 

Now, consider the possibility of a small amount of matter spontaneously appearing in a field of empty space. Anyone would think this was impossible, but I propose that it is merely unlikely. Extremely unlikely, but possible. Given the nature of infinity, even the least likely occurrence must have happened somewhere.

 

It is likely that the larger an entity is, the less likely it is to appear. Also, given the extreme unlikeliness of these events, the entities would be extremely far apart from each other, tantamount to infinity.

 

As we all know, the most likely cause of our universe was the big bang. An entity, of infinite mass and temperature, came into existence and exploded into a cluster of matter that is expanding to this day. This entity was just one of many different entities that have come into existence in a field of empty space, because even though it was unlikely, there was enough empty space to give it a chance. If the entity that started out universe was even slightly different, it could create a universe with catastrophic changes. Anything you could imagine, and everything you can't.

[vamos scorcho]

i find something very interesting about dawkins and perhaps krauss as well.

 

it is this sense that they 'know' there is no God. that goes beyond God, and more just into the possibilities of extraterrestrial life. or 'greater powers' than the human.

 

in a large universe how do they 'know' that there are no 'beings' or extraterrestrials who have transcended physical matter and exist on a different level? in short, Gods?

 

by definition, a God would be an extraterrestrial. a 'being' beyond our planet, perhaps beyond our plane of understanding.

 

I wonder if they have taken this into account. I assume they have, kind of. but I've never seen indication that they consider a power much greater or intelligent than them to exist.

 

deity

 

 

 

 

 

Krauss says, 'you don't need a deity. quantum fluctuations can create a universe from nothing'

how does he account for the quantum fluctuations? or the energy to cause them?

 

how does he account for 'being' itself? he's pretty sure there is no so called 'God' to have 'created' it. but how?

 

 

 

 

anyway, it might just be a totally different approach, to go entirely off of what we can see. without wondering at what is beyond, or

 

 

what set the paramaters.

 

what are the parameters?

 

does Krauss or Dawkins say simply that they do not know? that the questions will continue on forever? do they accept this and decide to be 'content' with what they can see?