multiverse

File: IMG_20170828_083313397.jpg (360KB, 2057x2352px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 2057x2352px

>>39361566
There exists vast seas of different worlds, each one different then the other. In one world, you're a kh permavirgin, another you're a ripped Chad that has never known sadness or grievance. Each world came to be this way just by existing, splitting off from each other.

If you dreamed of your perfect life, or a girl who truly loved you... Then that life exists. Even if you never know happiness, another you did.

>>39361566
Obviously it's entirely theoretical. I don't think there's any true scientific data for it to hold onto. I still like to think about it though. theoretically there's a universe exactly like this one but this post has one more typo in it. The multiverse theory would explain everything seemingly unexplainable by natural physics. Things like ghosts (if you believe in those) or other strange natural phenomenon. The kind of things you'd read as little snippets of infotainment on the Internet, you know. And maybe in another universe these seemingly world mending moments or properties are a lot more commonly seen and maybe even explained in their respective universes. In others maybe nothing at all would make sense through our own perception. Perhaps a universe exists in which everything is an endless sea of strawberry jam with clock shaped fish swimming in it. I dunno. It's really just something fun to think about.

There are multiple universes wig multiple versions of you and each one is probebly more happy than you

>>39361566
Basically, there are infinite possibilities in every situation. Some fucks believe that each possibility get its own world, that acts independently of what happens on Earth. That's essentially it

>>39361714
Thinking of this makes me even more unhappy.

It's a theory where there are multiple universes of you in them with every different choice that ever happened in them. For instance you chose to walk out your house and walk to the left down the street, there's a universe where you walked to the right instead.

Makes my fucking head hurt thinking about this stuff.

>>39361672
but what proof do we have of different realities? for example, we know time is the fourth dimension (rate of reactions) because we measured it though measuring a clock on earth and in orbit. this is why I believe time is part of the fourth dimension and simply the rate at which reactions are occurring due to gravity (warping of 4th dimension by mass).

however, I've never seen any proof of other dimensions. the only reason I'm not writing it off entirely is because some physicists believe in it, and the same could be said of the time being part of the 4th dimension before there were experiments done definitively proving it. people don't believe things for no reason, so if a physicist has a hunch about a multiverse before concrete evidence in the same manner a physicist had a hunch about time in the past before concrete evidence, I'm not inclined to totally believe him, but I'm inclined to try and understand what he's thinking because one day there may be concrete proof, I know not all hunches come true, but I'm willing to hear out the multiverse physicists and try to understand their pov because it could turn out exactly like the time theorists did, where it's proven concretely decades later.

>>39361566
>Can some anon explain space travel to me
>I don't see how flight could be possible

Anyway....I don't understand the full science behind flight nor do I understand the full science behind how a Car works but I notice small things out of place each day

>>39361566
Imagine a universe where you didn't make this thread.
It's out there, somewhere.

>>39361693
why do people think this is possible though? for example, if you told me 10,000 years ago that light caused colors and I was skeptical, you could say well, the sun shoots out light that's yellow in the day, but at night it's red and what not, so therefore you believe that light causes color. you just had a hunch through that thought, and without any concrete scientific evidence of wavelengths or the like, you were right and onto something.

this is what I believe the multiverse physicists could potentially be onto, they have a hunch about it due to things they observe or think about (even if they can't quite nail it down in there heads), as a result they think this theory is true even if they don't have the 'wavelength' details of it nailed down. this is what I'd like to know, what is there hunch about the multiverse, I think it could help me a lot in understand where they're coming from.

>>39361714
Or the inverse in some universes or timelines

There is unfortunately a timeline where a version of me got trapped underground in some mine disaster and help never came however he never had to deal with the ACT or SAT or worrying about acceptance into certain universities

In other timelines he graduated from big name schools and nepotism allowed him to advance in power while his rivals managed to discover things thought impossible, in those timelines his rivals were beheaded for slandering common thought while he was hailed as a genius

>>39361566
Isn't it something like the idea that all states the universe could possible be in are held in superposition simultaneously at the quantum level, bit by bit, in the fabric of what holds existence together, so it's more like all things exist at once altogether but from that superposition are the events we perceive pulled from them in their states for our current reality, which all other realities exist over the top.

I'm a brainlet so I have no idea what the fuck I'm saying.

>>39361566
It's a result of infinity

>>39361566
I don't believe in the traditional multiverse. I don't believe they happen simultaneously, but they happen linearly. When one universe reaches it's eventual end, the atoms reform into a new big bang, aka the eternal recurrence theory.
The infinite different possible combinations of the atoms in the big bang are what shape the next universe.

>>39361714
why do people think this is possible though?

>>39361768
why do they believe this though?

>>39361822
what would cause the choice to be different in each universe though? as far as i know my choices are just chemical and electrical reactions in motion, what would physically, tangiablly change in my brain to alter my choice, and where did that change come from and originate, which would make it a different universe from whatever starting point that was, but then you could layer those going back i guess. idk

>>39362028
>at the quantum level

what's this? I understand atoms etc. but what do you mean by the quantum level?

>>39362041
this makes more sense to me, but will probably be disproven in the future. i've actually thought about that before that like a ball bouncing the big bang could just keep happening over and over again exploding then imploding until things are so dense they just explode once again.

>>39362031
Technical we don't know if the whole multiverse thing is real
We don't even know if space actually is on forever
Space may have a 'end' to it but space is just so big we might never know if it ends

>>39362105
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

Something like this, so as far as I understand, there are things at the base level of what makes up our reality that have multiple states simultaneously, giving them multiple outcomes or properties which are influenced by the change of the states around it, which also hold multiple outcomes, this can also be interfered with just by observing or measuring it, so reality will respond to being measured, for a lack of better vocabulary, as far as I understand it.

>>39362044
It's the beauty of the multiverse theory, it explores ever decision you ever took and does the opposite of what you did. The multiverse theory is like asking the question "what if the nazis won"

>>39362136
That's true. We actually know fuckall. It's fun theorising about shit we most certainly won't establish in our lifetime though

>>39362105
Not him, but if I recall correctly;

>Quantum Physics is basically the science of educated guess
>Since we can't directly observe anything on that scale, we can learn a property of a particular particle such as location or speed, but not everything.
>Somewhere in that field of science is the whole "Schrodinger's cat" thing, which is the idea that particles actually have multiple simultaneous positions (a state called a superposition) until directly observed.
>Observing the particle collapses the probability field, and in some theories, causes a split between realities for each position the particle could have been in.
>Extrapolating this idea from quantum mechanics to life-size mechanics implies that every action you take has it's own universe. Actually, every action you take would also have several identical universes because having cloned realities with a single electron being the difference probably doesn't always mean that much of a difference.

>>39361566
The 4th dimension is the space-time continuum. Infinite 3d "snapshots" of our universe in a line with infintely small amounts of time-based difference between each one. The 5th dimension is travelling between timelines whilst still going in a straight line, which is done via choice (eg in one timeline you woke up at 4pm and in another you woke up at 3am). The 6th dimension is travelling between any timeline in any direction (e.g going into a timeline where dinosaurs still exist). The 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions are governed by the same point, line, plane postulate that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd are. Any 3d snapshot from a 4th dimensional perspective is a point. A certain trail of outcomes from this snapshot creates a 4d line from a 5th dimensional perspective. And all of these outcome trails can be viewed as a 5d plane from a 6th dimensional perspective. Every outcome trail within our 6th dimensional phase space came from the start of our universe, so they'll all have the same laws of physics in common. Logically, a 7th dimensional perspective views our 6d phase space as a point. From an 8d perspective, there is a 7d line of universes where a certain law has been changed very slightly between each one. Lets take f = m x a. The next universe in the 7d line has f = 0.9999m x a, and so on. From a 9d perspective, there are other lines parallel to our own, where an entirely different law has been changed, which creates an 8d plane. The 10th dimension views every possible multiverse strand as one 9d point, which is impossible, because where does it view it from?

Something like that anyway, watch YouTube videos about it instead.

>>39362218
Basically what this non brainlet anon said.

So it's not as grand as there being a universe for gf playing right now because it doesn't exist in your grand quantum extrapolation.

And also a simple difference as where a spec of dust lands essentially created thousands of new positions within itself due to the collapse, there's also a thing called a density matrix that I barely understand where you can have accumulated quantum states/possibilities in an underlying space, so in a way, all that can ever be and was is already in superposition, maybe.

The reality of the batshit nature of the fabric of how the system of existence works is really more interesting than the idea of bubble universes with perfect gf, i'd say.

>>39362139
interesting animation, seems like a massive cluster fuck desu, almost like this was all a mistake of some experiment lol (it could be though). so if you thought of it in 2d terms, it would be like sliding transparent dotted papers over one another and each time the dots or the like interacted with one another they'd split off and create another dimension (new sliding piece), so over time the number of dimensions would exponentially increase (2nd power related to 2d maybe) and thus create infinite realities.

>>39362212
i wish we knew though, if we did there would just be more questions though, then when we ran out of questions eventually if that's even possible we would probably just become depressed or have to change our makeup to avoid existential depression, i'm sure things will change enough to change that outcome though.

>>39362218
what would the origin of the multiple states be though, and why are things in multiple states at all, it seems like the lines between dimensions are really thin

>>39362362
It's hard to imagine ever running out of questions or unexplored possibilities

>>39362362
>what would the origin of the multiple states be though, and why are things in multiple states at all, it seems like the lines between dimensions are really thin
Basically, quantum physics is what rocket scientists use to describe difficult tasks. But since that's not helpful, watch this video instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7bzE1E5PMY

>>39362362
I'm not sure there's even good language for what kind of fucky shit is going on under the blanket of reality in terms of how the machine of the actual fabric of reality in which all things are encapsulated into a closed system in a space where technically nothing should be able to exist outside of existence itself to encapsulate itself etc.

But superposition is probably what OP would be interested in if he wants to learn more about that kind of shit.

Spookier yet is that the quantum state reacts (bad word) to being measured or observed by humans, so your observation or measurement 'influences' the extracted position from the superposition or something, it could be that this can be drawn out into the idea that what you expect to see will be what the universe serves to you based on your perception as an autonomous process.

Really makes you think.

>>39362218
>basically the science of educated guess

seems like the cutting edge stuff tends to be this way until there's concrete evidence of it, then it's no longer cutting edge since it's proven and absorbed into the scientific database :p

>>39362277
that's cool to think about, i wish we could 'zoom out' to see the true origin of things, or what the true top layer is, or even if that question makes sense and why it wouldn't if it doesn't since i'm coming from this dimension's pov and the best analogy to understand it from this dimension.

>>39362408
if we have sufficient time before the universe implodes on itself we very well could.

>>39362442
so basically quantum mechanics is our observation of a higher dimension and the reason it doesn't make sense is because we can only see our own dimension. i guess you could take a large enough sample size to get a general outline of the higher dimension, is this what they mean when they say each dimension can see the 'shadow' of the one above it? I'm sure the more data you collected the higher you could go through extrapolation potentially even though this would eventually fizzle due to using all data/universal resources possible and due to the compounding demands of dimension upgrading.

>>39362442
also while I have you what are your thought on predestination/inevitability of choice and outcome, i think it will be impossible to fully understand until the highest level of the onion is peeled which we are almost certainly not in, so how do you deal with this because for now even though i can't know for certain until the last layer is known, it seems like free will and 'choice' are inevitable and therefore my life is meaningless?

>>39362620
I think it's like that everything that has been, could be and will ever be is happening at once, over the 'top' (bad word) of everything and now, somewhere, because for it to be a part of probable outcomes it has to have a probable before and after that works within the system or something.

>>39362670
>it seems like free will and 'choice' are inevitable and therefore my life is meaningless?
wat, if anything, it means that everything is predestined, however the true bamboozle is the fact that everything that could ever be is predestined, all at once, on top of each other and it's all randomly accessed, so it's as close to free choice as you can get.

It's like being offered infinite doors and being told you're predestined to go through a door here, but you're not exactly strapped for freedom with these infinitely superposed doors of probability built into everything at a quantum level.

>>39362028
Hardly anybody knows what the fuck is going on in this respect. Quantum theory produces results but it's mathematical first and foremost. The nature of what the mathematical theory is still somewhat up in the air even as far as brainchads are concerned.

>>39362789
*what the mathematical theory is describing

>>39361987
I think it has something to do with assuming the universe is infinite therefor there's infinite space for anything to happen.

File: Tesseract.gif (491KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 256x256px

>>39362620
Quantum mechanics deals with very tiny objects, and what we can learn from them. I don't believe that it has anything in particular to do with >3 spacial dimensions, if that's what you're asking.
>is this what they mean when they say each dimension can see the 'shadow' of the one above it
I'm not sure, but geometrically, that is taken a lot more literally. Much like a 2-dimentional plane can see the shadow of our 3-dimentional cube, a 3-dimentional "shadow" could theoretically exist of a 4-dimentional tesseract. Such a shadow would not be flat to us, it would be fully 3D, but would represent a cut section the full 4-dimentional object. The attached picture is a n example of the shadow you might see if you somehow came upon viewing the shadow of a rotating tesseract. This is all unrelated to quantum physics, but something I still find fascinating.

>>39362670
So far, quantum mechanics has resisted any efforts to show entities on that scale of being predictable. But in any case, they way I see it is; if nothing is pre-determined, then I live my life responding to the stimuli that I receive as best I can. If the universe turns out to be pre-determined, then I'm pre-determined to live my life responding to the stimuli that I receive as best I can. Worrying about it is useless, so enjoy life as you can instead.

>>39362723
>if anything it means that everything is predestined

that's what I mean, it certainly seems like that's the way things are going, I just find the thought that all our 'choices' are probably inevitable and the outcomes of our lives already written incredibly depressing, the loss of agency over my own life, the state of my being, the ability to influence the future, even the choice to make a change to better the future, all predestines, it's so depressing to feel like this is almost certainly true.

File: 1490971755105.png (440KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 633x758px

the multiverse is even more depressing
it means you're not only the unlucky virgin one out of like 30 people (or however the rate is), you're also the unlucky virgin one out of infinitely many copies of you

>>39362859
>if the universe turns out to be pre-determined, then im predetermined to live my life responding to the stimuli that i receive as best i can

ive actually heard a similar argument before that if free will exists and you try your best to do things right then you've done yourself a solid, but if it doesn't exist than you were gonna do it anyways so it doesn't matter. i just can't get behind this because if it is predetermined and i'm living my life as if i had free will (paradoxical i know just bear with me) then it's just some sick sham, I just can't bear the thought of living a life under the illusion of free will if im just a set of reactions bound to occur in a certain order and composition regardless of my 'choice' to believe if i have free will or not. i fucking hate it.

>>39361899
>but what proof do we have of different realities?

No 'proof'. All we have are problems to which it would provide some level of answer.

>>39362860
It depends what you mean by already written, defining agency and loss of it, your life relative to the superpositions of every part of everything, where you think you derive influence from and how to attain it etc, what makes a better future, etc.

What is talked about here atleast shows that there's an infinite level of possibility, none are known, the universe isn't an entity that 'knows' a thing like we know it within our behaviour, it would take like essays to break down all the things you've said but don't be so down on yourself, if anything, what brainchads are digging up is kind of the wings of freedom for anyone interested in what these things could actually imply about how we perceive our reality

>>39362992
I just wanted to add that the universe doesn't 'know' its superposed states, it just has them, or existence has them, it's through some kind of observation/measurement or triggering fuckery that the position is brought forward and the probability becomes set from the infinite, it means that in a way, so maybe on a larger scale, your own perception of reality attains a feedback relative to what you expect to see or receive.

So it's not you're the unlucky virgin, you're actually the virgin that expects to remain a virgin and a virgin you will remain, but that's more philosophical and psychological shit which are systems like several magnitudes down the ladder to raw math and quantum physics which is like almost the absolute core discipline, the deepest thing you can apply to the universe, hard to translate all the way up the ladder to behaviour of organisms within this system.

>>39362992
>>39363053
>but that's more philosophical and psychological shit.. several magnitudes down... to raw math and quantum physics which is... the absolute core discipline.

this is what depresses me, i can't help but think anyone saying shit like 'just believe in yourself' and 'you'll be the you who has a shitty life with that attitude' is full of shit since at the core, if you had enough data, math, physics etc. you could literally predict exactly what the future held for every single person without a single mistake. the thought that this is possible and therefore that my future is already set in stone is completely depressing to me. sure you could argue about the semantics of choice etc. but ultimately i believe this is meaningless since there is only one series of outcomes my life could possible have and regardless of what i 'choose' these events will happen to me and my life will occur in exactly this way. like you said about philosophy and psychology, they're below the actual math, physicist etc. that determine reality, and therefore even arguing the semantics of choice and free will is ultimately meaningless.

>>39363237
the only positive thing i can salvage from this is that even if life is predetermined, at least i'm along for the ride, it just sucks to have something as intrinsic and given as free will stripped from me, it feels like my heart's been ripped out and has been for years. plus this ride sucks anyways, and is just constant suffering so what's even the point? fuck this man, i'm just holding on hoping the ride gets better but it's looking like it won't more and more everyday.

>>39362985
I had philosophy musings for a while on a similar problem: How can one be blamed for his actions if everything is predetermined? Even on a smaller scale. For example, if a man is the product of his environment, then his actions are shaped by his childhood upbringing. Can you assign blame to him for doing something he was conditioned to do, or is it like blaming a car that had been left on a hill with no brake?

In the end, I settled on that it didn't matter. For better or for worse, humans learn by trial and error, so the act of blame (and the following punishment) is not isolated to just an outcome. Rather, all events continue to shape the individual, and nothing can be done about it.

The thing about free will is that it cannot be proven. You could say that you choose to beat the predetermination and change your actions for a day, but it could be that you were predetermined to learn about predetermination and are stuck anyway. Or there could be no predetermination and you're choosing to be worried about nothing. And you will continue to worry about it until you decide not to, predetermined or not.

File: cmb.jpg (22KB, 460x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 460x300px

>>39361987
>>39361899
From a bit more educated believers of a higher intelligence it is usually pointed out that our universe is a huge coincidence. The atomic forces, the energy, the gravity, the rules of our world are very fragile, for example, if some atomic forces would just be a little stronger or weaker as they are now, there would be no real matter in the universe. Thus, a higher entity must have forged our world with these exact rules in mind, so that something as life (or planets) could even exist.

The multiverse-theory can attempt to solve this question, because it states that all these other universes are around in which the forces and rules are different.
If all of the possible universes with all the possible rules exist, one of which must harbor life.

Also there is the cold spot, which some scientists say is a "dent" another universe made when it bumped into ours.

>>39363373
like i said it's meaningless to talk about the semantics of choice because predetermination would make it meaningless either way. I'm just depressed about the thought that my entire life could be charted out right now to 100% accuracy and I could do nothing to prevent if from occurring.

>>39361566
>I don't understand how it could be possible.
It isn't.
Autists sometimes forget that science fiction is make believe and INSIST that there is an alternate universe where they travel with doctor who and have a gf.

>>39363473
it wouldn't surprise me if we were the mistake or creation of a higher universe and so on and so forth, but at a certain point the buck stops and there is an innermost layer to the onion that definitively answers the question of free will

>>39363578
sometimes i think this too, that it's wishful thinking or that due to the entertainment value of the multiverse theory it's been given a disproportionate amount of attention relative to the probability of it actually being true

all i know for sure is that im on some wild, fucked up ride and im not sure if im in control or not and im not sure if anyone can answer that for now

File: 1421901173056.jpg (34KB, 482x722px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 482x722px

>>39361714
>There are multiple universes wig multiple versions of you and each one is probebly more happy than you
when you put it like that..

>>39361566
it's not

if you really believe in it think about this


if it's true there must be a universe where someone from another universe comes into this thread proving that he exists

the fact that i can make it up means its a real thing according to multiverse believers

>>39361714
Technically there would be an equal amount of you who are happier or sadder than you if it's truly infinite.

>>39361566
The multiverse is pure speculation and there's zero evidence in its existence. Believing in the multiverse is the same as believing in God.

>>39364485
That multiverse hopper would jump into its own version of this verse. Not into this very one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7rZO2ACP3A

it's the best way to make money

>There's a universe where your waifu hugs a dakimakura with you printed on it
>there's also a universe hwere you've married your waifu because 2D portal is real in that universe

File: 031c820551cc4201a89e1eb54c3e6535.png (223KB, 308x262px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 308x262px

I think its just a modern world crutch for existential dread.
We can think bigger than in the past, and the idea of there only being one universe must be horrifying. Eventually it will end, and there will be nothing, forever.
It makes no sense to people so they say "oh well there's a multiverse haha there are so many universes, e-even one where me and stacy had sex!"
You just wanna live, get over it.

>>39364996
this guy here gets it. multiverse is as ridiculous as believing in god indeed. there is no proof at all and even highly unlikely. and even if it were true it is completely beyond comprehension and therefor meaningless.

>>39361987
People think there's unlimited universes simply because it's a neat idea that they've been exposed to since childhood though syfi tv shows and movies

>>39365255
I think it's just because people find the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics weird lol

It's too dependent on differing intelligences, but it works from that point to, say, predictive theory in one particular universe.

>>39365005
what? that doesn't even make sense, it sounds lkie you're trying to defend a theory

>>39365886
it sounds like you're trying to defend a theory*

>>39361987
>>39361693
>>39361768
>>39361899
>>39361987
>>39362044
>>39362136
>>39362212
>>39362986
>>39365265
>>39365773
the multiverse theory is based off of a weird occurence where photons will occasionally be affected in seemingly random patterns while moving. the multiverse theory is that it's somehow photons from other universes fucking with the photons here when they both line up. there was also a thing with quarks behaving similarly iirc. a lot of sci fi authors really liked this theory and wrote a bunch about it, but very little of it is scientifically accurate

>>39361566
To my understanding, a multiverse is the idea that there are universes with different properties. Things like extra dimensions and different physics. A parallel universe is the idea that our universe splits whenever there are more than one possible outcome. This results in a different timeline, if such a thing existed.

>>39365886
I really don't know how else to put it buddy. If someone jumped into another universe they would be jumping into their own umbrella universe's version of our universe or else it would interfere with this one. Or maybe we're just in a verse which doesn't have anyone prove the multiverse theory in this thread. I said earlier in this thread that the multiverse theory is just fun to think about. It's like wondering if we're living in a simulation or not. You can't prove it or disprove it.

>>39361566
It's the laziest interpretation to the collapsing of the wave function. We don't know why a probability spectrum materializes in one way and not the other, so people speculated they actually materialize in every possible way but each in a different universe. Basically it's a sophisticated way of saying we don't know.