I believe that the multiple worlds theory is wrong based on its

On to my next point, I have thought about it, and I do not believe matter exists. Scientists have discovered that atoms are composed of quarks and gluons, but these quarks and gluons are believed to have no properties of their own. Rather, their mass, charge, and even what they are (quark, gluon, electron, et. c.) is determined by an arbitrary spin number that can be changed. This spin number can change, but doesn't, as if it is coded to be what it is. Similar to how a computer, when creating a 3D rendering, creates a bunch of data points in an imaginary space. The computer creates these points, and assigns them data to allow them to behave a certain way, but in reality these data points not only are capable of carrying any other data yet they do not, but they also do not really even exist. They are simply energy flowing through the computer's transistors. That is what I believe the universe as we know it to be - all matter is simply an imaginary array assigned to be how it is, but arbitrary in existence. It is merely energy that is not perceived as it really is. Maybe, just like how a computer creates a 3D array and projects it into 2D space, this universe is 3D space in a 4D array that we will never see, being the observers.

(finished 2/2)

>>8385973
>its fallacious assumption that if something can happen
Your assumption that the many worlds theory assumes this is fallacious.

>>8385997
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

bump
The world needs to see my retardation

>>8385977
you played 2 much steins gate m8

>>8385973
>thinking you know better than real quantum physicists because of some bullshit philosophical argument

You can't just skim over the wiki page of many worlds theory and then think you can disprove it with a short paragraph and a bit of thinking. Besides, a recent experiment done at UCL showed that you either have to reject scientific realism or accept many-worlds or the pilot wave theory as the correct interpretation of the wavefunction. There's an article in physicsworld called "Life of Psi" that explains this experiment in a really clear way. I suggest you read it.

Also it doesn't matter if matter exists or not. It has absolutely no baring whatsoever on how matter behaves or how it interacts with the universe around it. Saying that matter "doesn't exist" is completely meaningless and isn't going to affect whether or not many worlds theory is valid. And your reasoning that it doesn't exist is pretty poor to be honest. So it seems sort of analogous to how computers do 3D rendering. So what? Those data points are still significant and still interact with stuff in a significant and important way, and saying that they "don't exist" is a pointless and inconsequential obersvation that isn't even really that correct. I mean they definitely do exist, even if it's in a symbolic way. They represent "energy flowing through the computer's transistors", they are a direct consequence of something that definitely does exist, so how does that mean that those data points don't exist?

And what do you mean "quarks and gluons are believed to have no properties of their own"? That's just complete bullshit. Of course they have properties. You seem to be saying that because their spin, charge and mass etc doesn't change that means they don't exist??? How much have you actually thought this through? In fact, whether or not their properties change doesn't tell you anything about whether they exist.

In conclusion, your arguments are weak.

>>8386187
>many worlds theory
>theory
stopped reading there

you know just as much as the OP, possibly less than he does. many worlds is a hypothesis and it will always remain a hypothesis until someone sees an alternate universe and records data from it

you CAN disprove a hypothesis with philosophical arguments. that is the whole point of philosophy.

>>8386220
OP here.
You're my nigga.

Shit posting.

>>8386348
I do not understand what you meant to imply in the first half.
And in the second, you say you do not believe that matter is reall?
He explains in short the first part.

>Chances are, the universe will reach its heat death long before the hypothetical scenario could take place

When we speak about the universe, we mean the observable universe. Beyond a certain point, the light arriving will have been red-shifted, and will have lost so much energy that you'd need an antenna longer than the observable universe to receive it.

The obsession with building larger telescopes is because you need larger antennas for longer wavelengths. The bigger we build them, the larger our observable universe becomes. As we've done this throughout history, we've found higher and higher levels of emergent order.

>meaning that every event that occurs in our universe will be unique since after that the universe will die

Quantum fluctuations will likely cause another universe. This suggests that universe-creation is something common, and beyond what we can currently observe are more universes.

It's likely that cosmic inflation pushes these universes apart FTL, meaning that they'll forever be beyond our observable universe unless you have a wormhole.

>That is what I believe the universe as we know it to be - all matter is simply an imaginary array

You're arguing against the interpretation that allows this most elegantly.

>>8385977
>I have thought about it, and I do not believe matter exists
Fortunately, no one cares about your beliefs, especially if they are ones you hold simply because you "thought" about something.

>>8386467
Ah, but Jesus cares.

>>8386220
Arguing semantics gets you nowhere. In common parlance, they mean the same thing. In science, the distinction between hypothesis and theory in this specific situation is so pedantic that it makes you sound stupid. Further, a scientific hypothesis and a philosophical hypothesis are not interchangeable.

If you have literally nothing to contribute, go away.

>>8386458
After crossing the visible part of our universe there are no more universes pulling away?

What are you trying to imply?

>>8386541
After crossing the visible part of our universe there are more universes pulling away?* (Sorry, my error)

What are you trying to imply?

File: 65555f8.png (354KB, 760x572px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 760x572px

>>8386458
>Quantum fluctuations will likely cause another universe. This suggests that universe-creation is something common, and beyond what we can currently observe are more universes.