Multibullshit

>>8940689
prove you what?
the possibility of the existence of multiverse does in no way pertain to the possibility of travel between them

>>8940689
Consider that we may be in one universe where other travelers can't cross into ours?

>>8940702
>>8940704
"There is a God and he's just in our universe, there are no other gods and universes" is just as valid as your points. Nothing proves/disproves this, just like a story a kid can come up with but really believes that is either true/somewhat/not at all true. Therefore it's just LARP fantasy

>>8940689
>If there were infinite universes, there would be infinite chances of someone discovering multiverse traveling, thus we'd have infinite ayy lmaos and other humans visiting our universe to say hello.

Nice bait. It's so good I'm going to reply.

You seem to be making the assumption (as many people do) that "infinite" means "all-inclusive". Or at least, the assumption that random events are independent across universes.

Let's say there were infinitely many *independent* (in the probabilistic sense) universes, and a coin is flipped in each universe. The probability that they are all tails is then 0 (the events are independent so we get 1/2 * 1/2 * .... =0)

But what if they're not independent? You can't conclude that any of the coin flips turns out to be heads. In general you can't conclude that every possible event happens in some universe.

>>8940711
Except that's wrong, you retard.

File: 1489732597630.gif (1MB, 257x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 257x200px

>>8940711
I would like you to stop now

>>8940716
>In general you can't conclude that every possible event happens in some universe.
This is where you're wrong. Infinite means that all things would and could happen. Period. That is why it's infinite. Go far enough and there is another earth literally the exact same as our, except where one guy banged his knee once. Infinite would literally mean all inclusive.

>>8940728
Nope. There's infinitely many even numbers. None of them are odd. An infinite set does not need to include everything.

There's no promises that you'll find what you're looking for just by looking inside an infinite set.

>>8940689
>If there were infinite universes, there would be infinite chances

Stopped reading right there. Just because there are an infinite amount of universes does not mean that everything happens.

Off yourself you keyboard theoretical physicist.

>>8940728
>If I flip a coin an infinite number of times, at least one time it will land on dragon.

Only possible events can happen in probability theory. If the probability of discovering inter-verse travel is zero, then after an infinite number of trials the expected number of universes which have discovered it is zero.

Not that I believe in the multiverse, I also agree it's a silly idea.

>>8940737
There are also an infinite number of odds. Do you understand infinity at all?

>everything that can happen is greater than 0
>ergo anything that can happen will happen on a long enough line like infinity
>lrn 2 priors

>>8940749
I was clearly saying that things that were possible would all be played out in infinite universes. Something that just isn't possible is a value of 0. But >>8940716
dumb dumb here seems to think that something that can happen doesn't mean it will on an INFINITE scale.

>>8940751
Let's say I start reading from an infinite list of numbers. Here I go: 2, 4, 6, 8, ....

Do you believe that I will inevitably read out an odd number eventually? After all, if my list were random you'd expect about half of the numbers on it to be odd. So I have to read an odd number eventually, right?

>>8940753
I'm trying to be patient with you in the hopes that you'll learn something from this. I'm starting to suspect that you won't.

>>8940758
That's not the argument dick face. You are too stupid to understand. OP didn't say "if there were infinite multi-verses in which you couldn't travel between them, well you could because of infinity."

You are setting limitations on your infinite set. The adults are discussing ALL possibilities of infinite. We aren't setting limits on the infinite set. Stupid fuck.

>>8940762
literally a freshman.

>>8940770
So you assume the set of multiverses is a set without any limitation whatsoever, which is exactly my point. You have no reason to assume that.

Don't tell me I'm the one who doesn't understand infinity if you're assuming that "infinite" means "all-inclusive".

I hope you're only pretending to be retarded but I worry about you

>>8940777
I have as much reason to assume that as you do not. And we just explained how if a possibility is greater than 0 it literally is all inclusive. Seriously, how dumb are you? Don't answer, it's rhetorical.

>>8940780
>I have as much reason to assume that as you do not.
No. The default is to not assume anything. At least, among intelligent people it is.

>>8940785
>but I'm allowed to assume that a multiverse would have limitations that stop things greater than 0 from happening.

KYS Senpai.

>>8940780
>if a possibility is greater than 0
didn't realize I was arguing with a genius

Even if somebody figured out a way to travel between universes doesn't mean they have the time, energy, or inclination to visit each one.

An entire universe full of travelers would still have an infinite selection of universes to travel to. The odds of our particular universe being chosen, even after 10^10^10 travel events, are essentially zero.

>>8940790
suck my dick, piggot. You're wrong in every universe.

>>8940802
>literally BTFO

Metric

>>8940800
This. Your chances are equally 1 and 0 to have people show up in your universe if multiverse theory is true. There's literally infinity to choose from, so why you? infinity -1 is still infinity; you're essentially at a statistically negligible odds of having someone enter your universe.

>>8940790
You're begging the question by assuming that its greater than zero. If interuniversal travel is impossible then it will never happen in any of the infinite universes. Interuniversal travel is a meta property involving more than one universe, not a property of a single universe, which are iterated on infinitely.

>>8940803
Enough of your oinkery

>>8940814
I am not, because I'm not OP. I was responding specifically to that dumb fuck saying that just because everything can happen doesn't mean it will. Which is completely incorrect. In an infinite multi verse, everything that CAN happen, will. I didn't even talk about the potential can or can not for multiverse travel.

>>8940689
Multiverse =/= Many-worlds

>>8940716
events with probability 0 can happen, though.

If you flip infinitely many independent coins, the probability of getting all "Tails" is 0, but that's true for any particular assignment of "Heads" and "Tails".

It's like choosing a uniform random real number in [0,1]. No matter what the outcome is, it will be something that a priori had probability 0.

So I don't buy into the argument that it's impossible to flip infinitely many coins and never get heads.

>when you take a shit, there are infinitely many universes in which the turd quantum tunnels right to the face of Stephen Hawking and all the other multiverse peasants
Feels good, man.

>>8940822
Where did he say that? You can't read.

>>8940849
>In general you can't conclude that every possible event happens in some universe.
Apparently you can't.

>>8940860
That's semantics. Clearly by "every possible" he means "every imaginable." Look at the context.

OP here. What most of you are saying, is explained in the op post.

So you got a fact

It's not provable because what the fact dictates is non-provable as it has never happened or observed

You are saying that your fact is based on infinity, and there is an infinitely small chance for the fact to be proven

BUT IT HASN'T BEEN IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM

therefore it is not a fact, but a fantasy until PROVEN otherwise

>>8940894
>backpedaling
>if we ignore the words used and make up shit it totally makes sense
It's okay to admit you were wrong samefag

>>8940898
It's not a fact. Is a hypothesis. You tried to falsify the hypothesis by finding a contradiction. But your proof fails because it assumes that interuniversal travel is possible in the first place. In an infinite multiverse, possiblity implies necessity. You never proved possibility.

>>8940902
Not samefag, read his post again. A meta property involving multiple universes is not the same as the properties being iterated in single universes.

>>8940913
No one needs to read shit again. He spent 20 posts explicitly arguing against the possibility of anything that can happen will. Even after it was spelled out several times. He's either too stupid to understand the argument against him and was arguing poorly for the same thing, or he's too stupid to agree with someone.

>>8940908
I'm dumb, so let's break this down so I can understand it and answer you:
>It's not a fact. Is a hypothesis
Why is it taken seriously, even more seriously than Harry Potter being real? It is a hypothesis, but a lot of funding and money go to scientists and mathematicians working on the subject and therefore I raise the question.
>You tried to falsify the hypothesis by finding a contradiction
That I did, yes.
>But your proof fails because it assumes that interuniversal travel is possible in the first place
The hypothesis dictates that there are infinite possibilities, which dictates that there is an actually infinite chance of an "Ayy Lmao Imperial Interverse Force" that travels between universes to visit brainlet humans and ayy lmaos. Further, the hypothesis dictates that someone somewhere has discovered multiverse travel outside of a cartoon because there is an infinite chance of that.
>In an infinite multiverse, possiblity implies necessity. You never proved possibility.
Infinite chance of it must mean there is, albeit small, some possibility for it.

You (or anyone else) ever proved multiverse theory to be a feasible theory with base in reality, yet it is studied and well known to the population.

>>8940711
Except for the little detail that multiverse is an interpretation of the best theory mankind has ever developed which can predict everything that can be and god is just a fairy-tale with no predictive power

>>8940822
>In an infinite multi verse, everything that CAN happen, will.
holy shit you're a fucking retarded piggot
still on about this

>>8940689
>there would be infinite chances of someone discovering multiverse traveling
Unless multiverse travel is impossible.

If you have an infinite series of 1's, you'll never have a 2.

>>8940951
>he's so mad he's wrong he's just going to keep saying the same shitty insult
LOL

>>8940979
He is frustrated with your three monkeys' attitude and so am I.
This thread should have ended with the first reply.

Proof that the real numbers between 0 and 1 are countable:

consider an infinite sequence of real numbers from 0 to 1, written thusly:
[eqn]0.x_{11}x_{12}\ldots[/eqn]
[eqn]0.x_{21}x_{22}\ldots[/eqn]
where each x_{ij} is a digit 0-9.

Now comes the ingenious part of the proof: since the sequence is infinite, every possible combination of digits occurs eventually! It has to! It's infinite!

Where's my Fields medal, piggot?

File: X on SCI.png (31KB, 694x968px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 694x968px

>>8940689
Agreed, but stop posting >>>/x/ shit in /sci/ regardless.

>>8940995
>being wrong hurts my feelings
>>>reddit>>
Is that way.

>>8940926
>Why is it taken seriously, even more seriously than Harry Potter being real? It is a hypothesis, but a lot of funding and money go to scientists and mathematicians working on the subject and therefore I raise the question.
Lol no, no funding goes to research it. It's merely a pet hypothesis of some physicists, which had been exaggerated greatly by popsci. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

>The hypothesis dictates that there are infinite possibilities, which dictates that there is an actually infinite chance of an "Ayy Lmao Imperial Interverse Force" that travels between universes to visit brainlet humans and ayy lmaos.
An infinite universe contains every possible iteration. If interuniversal travel is impossible, it can't be iterated. So your argument fails. You're just handwaving. Further it's not even in the same class as an iteration of the properties of a universe, it's a meta property. So infinite universes is completely irrelevant. Either is a property the multiverse has, or it isn't.

>Infinite chance of it must mean there is, albeit small, some possibility for it.
There is no such thing as "infinite chance." That's gibberish. Iterating through the infinite natural numbers does not mean you will ever get a negative number.

>>8941002
what the fuck is this shit?

File: 714551155_838a4eeb4e_z.jpg (157KB, 563x640px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 563x640px

>>8940943
>Except for the little detail that God is an interpretation of the best theory mankind has ever developed which can predict everything that can be and multiverse is just a fairy-tale with no predictive power

>>8941000
Trips for truth, but what does that really prove? How does that fact in any way show that there are alternate universes? Explain it as you would to a brainlet like me.

>>8941034
>god
>theory
>prediction
The real mongoloid is you

File: 1489361567541.gif (948KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 200x200px

>>8941000
>thusly

>>8940689
You're counter-argument is stupid, infinity > infinity. And that's assuming that multiversal travel is even possible.

>>8940800
>be advanced civilization
>learn to multiverse travel
>go to same coordinates in "neighboring" universe
>end up in space because that universe developed differently and shit is dispersed differently
>cruise around in vacuum of space for 5 years with nothing but lifeless planets
>realize how pointless this was other than a proof of concept
>return to home universe, forget about technology

>>8940689
Universe is infinite, but under the laws of physics. It doesn't mean that every event can happen, but that the possibilities are never over.

In mathematics, for example, you can say that a infinite amount of numbers can be used in a certain case, except for 1, 3 and 8. It is still infinity, but with rules.

Things this thread should be aware of:

>infinity is not a solution for everything, stop liberally applying it to things where it doesnt belong
>infinite does not mean all encompassing. If something is impossible, infinite chances given for it to happen will come up empty 100% of the time.
>interuniversal travel is an assumption, therefore irrelevant. You have no reason to believe thats possible.
>there are not necessarily infinite universes. This is another baseless assumption. The universe could just as easily be part of a finite system, similar to a galaxy on a larger scale.

>>8940689
>It's nothing but a loser LARP theory where failures can dream themselves away and say "But in some other universe, I am kang!"

I don't get this.

I fucking hate this theory, because sometimes I get intrusive thoughts, and then I think that somewhere in another universe, there is a me that actually acted upon that intrusive thought, and what a horrible rest of his life will the other me have. I instantly feel bad for him. Then I snap out of it and proceed with my life.

>>8940702
Infinite universes with infinite possibilities and in not a single one someone has invented interdimensional travel and decided to come to earth and do a bit hoopdie ha even though that is one of the infinite possibilities.

>>8940689
I somewhat agree OP, it feels like we're losing out grip on an era where a single clear theory could explain things and entering a time of contradictions

Guys I just found an elementary proof of the Green-Tao theorem.

Fix k. Now just start looking for a k term arithmetic progression in the primes starting at 2 going up.

But there are infinitely many primes! Therefore you'll eventually find what you're looking for! That's how infinity works, apparently!

>>8941242
What fucking infinite possibilities, what the fuck are you on about?
If there is no phyisical way to pass from one to the other, the number of people trying for it is completely fucking irrelevant.

Just because there might be a universe with completely different physics, a universe in which you're not a mouthbreathing fucktard, it doesn't imply he's gonna break those fucking physics.

The germs in our universe would be slightly different than the germs in their universe, so as soon as they came here they would get infected and die.

>>8940689
A few problems with your reasoning.
1) It very well may be that multiverse travel is possible, the problem being the vast size of the universe. We can travel across the pacific ocean in a sufficiently equipped boat, taking any route across that we so please. In fact we do this quite frequently. Yet if you were stranded in the middle of the pacific ocean, even with people actively searching for you, your chances of being found are slim. Now imagine if the ocean was 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(plus more zeros than this post will allow me to enter) times larger. You are stranded in the middle of this ocean. What do you think your odds of being found are?
2) Its possible that the laws of physics will not allow travel between universes reguardless of what you do, or how advanced you are.
3) You are assuming multiverse traveling beings even want to meet us. They can travel between universes, theres a good chance they have traveled a good portion of their own already, and if life isnt as insanely uncommon as it appears to be we would be old news. Maybe we just arent that special and theres more interesting things out there. We cant say for sure but its a possibility.

>>8940917
Just accept that you're fucking wrong. Science is about doubt and skepticism, not faith. You have an enormous amount of faith to assume that an infinite set of universes means that all things will happen.

Imagine that I told you I will give you an infinite set of numbers. I MIGHT mean a set that contains all numbers, or I MIGHT mean the set of numbers between 1 and 2. Both are infinite sets. You are a complete fucking retard to not understand that an infinite set means nothing in terms of what content is contained within the set.

Yes, I responded to the obvious bait. Yes I fucking mad.

>>8941683
Hey OP. Try to discredit an actual arguement (see the one above you).

>>8940689
I like to shill the for the interpretation of the multiverse as a mathematical potential. No one cares if the EM potential implies the existence of a parallel universe whose gradient points in the opposite direction to our forces. Just let the multiverse be a potential.

>>8940689
At some point the idea od multiple undetected universes (universes!) will be recognized as the Aether of our era.

>>8940689
Honestly the only fundamental principle in the Universe will turn out to be the No-Hypercomputation Principle which I will name after myself. Every other thing will follow from there

Whoa guys I just solved a big time open problem. I can prove that pi is a normal number. Get a load of this.

Fix any string of digits. We'll show that it occurs as a contiguous substring of the digits of pi.

We apply the following crucial observation: pi has infinitely many digits. That means that our string must appear! It has to because the digits are infinite! There's infinite possibilities so every single possibility is realized!

Q.E.D.

>>8940689
Is not infinity something illogical,and thus rejectable for any serious scientific theory?

>>8940704

That question mark is annoying me

Hey I just disproved Goldbach's conjecture with a one line proof.

Since there's infinitely many even numbers, there must be one that isn't the sum of two primes. It is a possibility that I can imagine and there's infinite chances so it must happen!

>>8940689
>we'd have infinite ayy lmaos and other humans visiting our universe to say hello

But at the same time, we'd have an infinite amount of people stopping them from doing so. It's an entire paradox and is therefore out of the loop.

>>8940689
>infinite chances of someone discovering multiverse traveling
what if multiverse travelling is possible, but it requires the mass energy of two whole universes to do it?

>>8940689
there would also be the possibility of a universe where that never happened much and we could be that universe

File: buds.gif (2MB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x450px

>>8941859

>Orienting yourself in infinity can be rather difficult when you position in it can change, which it can according to multiverse theory.

How can you know which universe that you're in that has a set of events which is consistent with the life you've lived thus far?

What if our multiverse wasn't the only one.

>>8941881
>mindexplode

>>8941804
That is an undecidable question and it reduces to the halting problem. I didn't even have to google anything to say this. The digits of pi are generated by an algorithm and there is no way to determine if said algorithm will ever generate a given string even after an infinite amount of time

>>8941913
>the halting problem is undecidable
Listen retard, given infinite chances, every possibility becomes realized! So the program will eventually halt. There's infinite chances for it to halt

I feel like the "But infinite doesn't mean anything can happen!" is a cop out. Yes it's true that an infinite set doesn't necessarily contain every number but it's generally agreed upon if you're talking about infinite universes than you have every possible permutation of matter, infinite times. An infinite universe, or universes, necessarily means there are infinite you's living out every single conceivable variation of your life. Why? Because there isn't any logical reason in an infinite universe or multiverse that there wouldn't be. Think about it. You were created at least once, the you that is shitposting here right now. If we agree that through the sheer power of the infinite that matter will coalesce in the same way many, many times and we agree there is nothing inherently special about you and you're just a specific way that matter has arranged itself then logically IT must have happened again in an infinite universe, more than that it MUST have happened an infinite number of times.

That said, the idea of anything being truly infinite is a silly notion. Infinity does not exist within reality, it's an idea, nothing more.

>>8941928
It is. The halting problem is just a hard limitation on rational though; there are properly formed questions for which rational thought will fail to provide an answer.

>>8941938
>it's generally agreed upon if you're talking about infinite universes than you have every possible permutation of matter, infinite times
generally agreed upon by whom exactly?

>>8941938
That literally depends on whether the number of universes is countably infinite or uncountable

>>8941949
>generally agreed upon by whom exactly?
Mathematicians. If you think it's unlikely you don't understand what infinite actually means. Infinite means if something has a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of occurring it WILL occur for sure at some place at some time. Because a googol to the power of a googol years is effectively the same as 0 years when you compare it to an infinite span of time, it's so small it doesn't even register.

That doesn't mean things that break the laws of physics or crazy shit like Lord of the Rings is actually happening somewhere right now. But anything that can theoretically happen, will happen at some point. You exist, obviously you can be created. Giving infinite space and infinite time you will be arranged infinite times. Because there's nothing special about you at all. Tremendously unlikely yes but we've established that being unlikely means jack squat next to infinity.

>>8941963
Multiverse theory doesn't even actually talk about infinite alternate universes.
It's just a (sane, supported by people smarter than you who also thought more about it than you) way of interpreting what the wavefunction bullshit actually means.

File: 1491948494163.png (526KB, 800x587px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 800x587px

>>8940689
If there's a million ways for something to exist, doesn't that mean there's a million ways for it to not exist as well? If so, doesn't this end up as a 50/50 thing until we invent a viable method to make it a reality?

>>8941963
>Mathematicians
who? and where is it written?

> Infinite means if something has a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of occurring it WILL occur for sure at some place at some time.
lol no. just stop.

>>8941973
Wanted to add on: You're arguing against the pop science version of multiverse theory. There is actual substance behind multiverse theory, but you'd never know it from listening to internet arguments.

File: 1495161162048.jpg (20KB, 408x439px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 408x439px

>>8940968
If it's impossible for multiverses to affect other multiverses, what's the point in believing in multiverses?

>>8941963
What if there are an infinite amount of variables that can combine in an infinite number of ways?

>>8941992
see >>8941974

>>8941976
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/12/q-in-an-infinite-universe-does-everything-thats-possible-have-to-happen-somewhere/

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-finite-infinite.html

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132661/are-the-implications-of-an-infinite-universe-necessarily-so-unsettling

I mean if you want to be a contrarian go right ahead. But it's accepted that the implication of an infinite universe means an infinite amount of anything that can be created. Meaning infinite Earths, infinite you's. If you want to contest that you need to give a good reason for why the particular arrangement of matter on Earth could not be repeated given infinite space and time. I don't think you can give one and are just repeating "Nuh uh" because you're uncomfortable with the implications that come with an infinite universe.

>>8942008
>>8941992
see

>>8942013
It doesn't change anything. Infinity is a strange thing to wrap your head around.

>>8942022
Take 3 wheels
Line them up
Set them at different speeds
Watch the initial synchronization never recur.

>>8942008
>http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/12/q-in-an-infinite-universe-does-everything-thats-possible-have-to-happen-somewhere/
>Q: if it can happen, will it happen given enough or infinite time? Does it have to happen eventually
>A: There are a lot of subtleties in this question! The answer is basically yes, but there are some sneaky assumptions worked into that.

so the answer is "yes" if you're a basic brainlet, but really the answer is "no" if you aren't making unjustified assumptions.

>>8942028
Not really, the clarification is just that physically impossible things cannot occur. The answer is yes with the caveat that it must adhere to the laws of nature. Is this really such a weird concept for you guys? Boltzmann Brains have been an issue for over a hundred years. The concept of infinite time and space creating issues like these is by no means new.

>>8942040
Once again, the given answer was
>There are a lot of subtleties in this question! The answer is basically yes, but there are some sneaky assumptions worked into that.
I guess that's good enough for you. You can take pride in being "basically" right, with sneaky assumptions.

>>8942008
>https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-finite-infinite.html
that's written by a college dropout kook who likes to write about science on the internet.

His assertion that "if the universe is infinite, then there are infinitely many you's" is complete nonsense. He's a fucking brainlet falling victim to the same brainlet thinking you are.

>>8942008
>https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132661/are-the-implications-of-an-infinite-universe-necessarily-so-unsettling

top answer:
>The argument is sound given a few oft-omitted (but not too unreasonable) assumptions.

>assumptions

>>8942062
All the assumptions are in line with our current knowledge of how the universe works. If you want to dispute them you basically need to dispute our current understanding of cosmology. You guys must be really uncomfortable with the implications of an infinite universe if you're this desperate to try and deny it. You could just be like me and say the universe isn't infinite if you think it's dumb? I think it's dumb and I don't think infinity exists within reality. But if you do think the universe is infinite the idea of multiple Earths and multiple copies of you is inescapable. There's really no reason in an infinite universe there wouldn't be multiple Earths

>>8940689
This would be a good point if science was founded on the incoherent speculation of people who do not study it at all.

File: assumptions.png (61KB, 741x390px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 741x390px

>>8942083
>All the assumptions are in line with our current knowledge of how the universe works. If you want to dispute them you basically need to dispute our current understanding of cosmology.
Please show me where "our current understanding of cosmology" justifies the assumptions listed in the picture.

Frankly they're all pretty unjustifiable but I think I'm most interested in how you'll answer assumption #3.

File: download (5).jpg (7KB, 215x235px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 215x235px

The multiverse """"""""theory"""""""" Is impossible to prove and test, it is sustained in an idea pulled from someone's arse, which tries to answer a made up question that doesn't even make sense.

I'll here make a claim as absurd, but that has the same scientific validity:

The universe is 10 times bigger than the observable universe, and it's boundaries, due to the characteristics of the ether around it, are shaped like an exact copy of steve buscemi's left nut.

>>8942098
>Frankly they're all pretty unjustifiable
Ok you have no idea what you're talking about or are just confused about what they mean. 4 and 5 are givens, the universe is infinite(if we're correct about the topology and it's flat) and it's homogeneous. 3 is simply the hubble volume.

>>8942169
You can't disprove that though.

>>8942197
*sniff*

Can you feel it? it smells like tea in here

>>8942183
>3 is the Hubble volume
why? I don't think you understand what assumption 3 is asserting if you think the answer is the Hubble volume

>>8942261
Nothing outside the hubble volume can affect anything within it. The state of anything outside the hubble volume is independent of the state of anything within it because the two can never interact in any way

>>8942267
>Nothing outside the hubble volume can affect anything within it
why not?

>>8940728
an infinite amount of numbers above 2 can never contain a number that is below 2 you retard

>>8942275
Good thing the earth and the people on it are included within the scope of the universe so he's correct

Right, there would be infinitely many universes constricted by the same laws of physics that you don't understand

>>8942267
It is possible that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate in which case something may go from inside the Hubble volume to the outside. It is then possible to have had an effect on something outside the Hubble volume.

>>8941990
It affects us even if multi-travel is impossible. For example, it gives an explanation to the Fine Tuning argument.

It's super unlikely to have a randomly generated universe that would support complex life. But it's not super unlikely if the dice is thrown infinite times like in a multiverse.

File: muh balls.jpg (76KB, 356x480px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 356x480px

>>8941242
Infinite universes does not entail an infinite number of ways they can form, much less sustain intelligent life. You can only unfold a vacuum singularity in so many different ways. There'd be a whole lotta redundancy.

Not that I don't dismiss the theory myself, and infinite anything is straight out for me, but it would be entirely possible to have infinite universes, and have no way to traverse between them - which, as you point out, is more or less the only way you could have infinite universes exist (lest you start tweaking up different kinds of infinity or some shit).

It could even be that every universe evolves the exact same way - in which case every universe would merely be an exact duplicate of our own. So OP is an infinite faggot.

>>8940716
>You seem to be making the assumption (as many people do) that "infinite" means "all-inclusive"
>>8940741
>Just because there are an infinite amount of universes does not mean that everything happens.

How can you guarantee this?

File: Planck_CMB.jpg (2MB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x960px

>>8942169
>The universe is 10 times bigger than the observable universe, and it's boundaries, due to the characteristics of the ether around it, are shaped like an exact copy of steve buscemi's left nut.
CMB would kill that right quick. We know (or think we know) roughly, how much matter there is in the universe, including that which is already outside of the observable universe (which is considerable).

>>8942309
That looks suspiciously like Steve Buscemi's left nut.

>>8941322
>What do you think your odds of being found are?
Probability is not a factor when we are saying with an infinite amount of universes that there will always be a universe in which evolution, life, then technology can happen
>the laws of physics
Which no one can say is consistent across multiple universes
>You are assuming multiverse traveling beings even want to meet us
Which you can when there are infinite universes

>>8940689
Infinite possibilities doesn't include impossibilities, as is implied by the word "possibility" you dumbnut.

File: minecraft_block_values.png (66KB, 692x700px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 692x700px

>>8942307
>How can you guarantee this?
So, the theory goes that our universe is the result of a super hot singularity, caused by quantum potentials, expanding and cooling. This is how universes happen.

There's only so many different ways unification energy created by such an event can expand and cool. There's a lotta possibilities, but there's still a limit to them. There may, in fact, only be one way it can cool. Either way, every universe will have some commonalities, if not be exact clones of one another. In that universe creation scenario, some things are inevitable, in every universe.

Further, it may be only certain configurations are viable. Maybe only universes with four forces and seventeen particles like ours work, and the rest collapse. More likely that said configuration is inevitable, in every universe, and maybe only the details are different. Stars, galaxies, bound by gravity and pushed apart by counter forces, everywhere, but all with the same basic physical makeup. At a distance, it all looks much the same. In other words, every possibility THIS universe may have had, but alas, nothing supernatural or physics breaking, due to the same inevitably limited interaction of those four forces and seventeen particles. You can only do so many different things with the same building blocks.

You can have an infinite number of computers playing Minecraft, but while every possible thing that can happen in Minecraft, may happen, it's still just Minecraft.

>>8941280
You're a lonely guy aren't ya

I am sometimes amused by the thought of discovering and traveling to another universe, only to find we can only reach some great void between galaxies.

>>8940837
I don't think it's even possible to choose a random real number in [0,1] though, hence the 0.

Multiverse theory suggests that there is a universe where someone said "fuck me" and his clothes turned into turtle semen. Not only that, but there is a universe where that same guy said "fuck me" the next day and clothes turned into turtle semen again. And there is a universe where this guy said "fuck me" hundreds of times and had scientists observe his clothes turn into turtle semen every time, purely by chance, and now everyone in that universe believes this guy has the power to turn clothes into turtle semen.

It's fucking bullshit.

>>8942482
Fuck me, that's a good argument

>>8942578
Wait, what the fuck happened to my clothes?

>>8942482
That's not what multiverse says. Try actually listening to what Polchinski is saying

Why is 4chan populated by an infinite parade of butthurt children?

>>8941761
I'm not OP, but the post above mine isn't an argument faggot. They did literally nothing to prove that there are "multiple universes." It's like, if I said that there are no mermaids because we have no evidence that they exist, and then you counter with, "well maybe they don't want to be seen." That is not evidence, that is just being a brainlet.

Come back with an actual argument with actual evidence and we can talk. Until then, go fucj yourself you popsci faglord.

>>8942482
Ummm... See: >>8942332

How does a universe form in such a way that clothes magically turn into turtle semen?

You may have an infinite number of jars, but all these jars contain the same thing. They contain a universe, an expanding point of energy. None of your infinite number of jars contain magic.

Not that it still isn't bullshit, but not for the silly reasons you're concocting.

>>8942767
He didn't ask for evidence of multiverse, OP simply stated that that if there were infinite universes there would be inevitably be some way to travel between them, and thus infinite travelers, and thus everything would be toast with infinite energy passing through it (though I maybe adding that last supposition). This is simply not true. There's a limited number of things that can happen in any given universe, regardless of how many there are, and the ability to travel between them may not be among things that can happen.

But if YOU want evidence for multiverse:
https://futurism.com/new-evidence-about-cold-spot-in-space-could-support-case-for-a-multiverse/

But, personally, I'm still in the bullshit camp - particularly for infinite universes. Just not for the reason OP has been on about.

>>8942465
t. NJ Wildberger

>>8942083
For the sake of argument, let's say I believe these particular assumptions about the universe (even though I don't). How does that say anything about the *multiverse*?

Which proponent of multiverse theory says that it necessarily requires every imaginable universe?

This thread, as all those on this board can be boiled down to: uneducated people trying to disprove something they don't understand

>>8943088
This.

This thead is silly. There is an argument to be made that quantum superposition is exactly what you're describing, and evidence of the multiverse.

>>8942894
That's exactly the problem. Multiverse theory does NOT require every possible universe.

>this sounds stupid so it's wrong
relativity still sounds stupid today

>>8942589
>>8942802
No you Boltzmann brainlets, that is exactly what multiverse suggests and what many fail to comprehend. Every instant where something can happen, a set of universes is created where it did and didn't happen, respectively. This process branches out infinitely. If one atom can suddenly change a proton into a neutron and become a different element, then it stands to reason that any number of atoms can also do it and do so at the same time. The chances are near infinitely low that these random changes would all just randomly happen to be atoms in some guy's clothes while he is swearing, and that they would form turtle semen molecules, but if it CAN happen, it does happen in a universe somewhere. You have to accept this if you believe in a deterministic universe. If it the universe isn't deterministic, then all these coin flips happen in one universe and there is only one universe timeline.

>>8943903
Many-worlds=/=multiverse

If clothes could turn to turtle semen, the the state of matter in that universe would be so chaotic that there would not be anything that resembles life as we know it.

>>8943980

No no no. Any atom could spontaneously turn into another atom in our current physical universe. It is theoretically possible for this to happen, but practically impossible.

>>8944024
You have some very strange ideas as to how superposition is supposed to work.

Though I'm a pilot wave fan myself.

Reminder that we ourselves are not living in the original universe. You see, 1,000 years ago, a man fucked his wife in the ass in the main universe. Our universe came to be when he decided to fuck her in the pussy.

>>8944248
Theoretically if we traveled for enough light years we would find other versions of you, and somewhere out there there's a version that isn't a faggot

>>8944258
No system of physics, ours or any other kind we can imagine, can make that a possibility.

>>8944128
You just don't get it, Boltzmann Brain.

>>8940689
>grr im mad someone would assume finitely infinite universes
>so i'll make an even more 'rational' assumption that multiversal traveling exist and shitpost on 4chan

>1 sentence in
???
>I'll also assume we would have a multidimensional immigration problem where an infinite amount of matter is guaranteed to pop into our universe

Don't understand the logic

>Do try to prove me otherwise, that's what this thread is for.
What exactly are you trying to prove? Just seems like you are being critical of someone's idea instead of actually presenting one/an alternative.

>>8943903
Fuck off brainlet. There are dozens various theories that are called multiverse. Most of them are variations of many-worlds interpretation (read wrong). But there are couple valid. One of the more controversial being the anthro, but that's silly and needless. The multiverse has a chance of being right, because there's really not a law that says the other dimensions are compactified so it is entirely possible that there are other branes appart from our. Again, read what Polchinski says. He was against multiverse and athro for a very long and explains well the reasoning behind his shift towards them (insufficient reasoning for anthro, but very good arguments for multiverse).

>>8944455
>"Look at this little sentient speck that believes its sapient enough to even grasp the workings of the multiverse, when it can barely comprehend how its own universe works from its limited 4-dimensional view(barely) view and assumes that reality it cannot observe doesn't exist"
>"Oh like the frog in the hole they talk about?"
>"It's so cute, isn't it!?"

>>8944455
>"Look at this little sentient speck that believes its sapient enough to even grasp the workings of the multiverse, when it can barely comprehend how its own universe works from its limited 4-dimensional(barely) view and assumes that reality it cannot observe doesn't exist"
>"Oh like the frog in the hole they talk about?"
>"It's so cute, isn't it!?"

>>8944598
>I'd rather believe in ghosts and fairies than scientific theories
Anno domini 2017 and people still think our universe isn't stringy

>>8940689
Under OP's supposition, there must then be a Universe where the Earth is flat but a huge conspiracy has emerged to convince everybody that it is in fact a globe, for no real reason.

>Almonds activated

>>8940689
There is absolutely nothing scientific about the idea that infinite universes exist, so your criticism is perfectly fine and no actual physicist would be able to refute you honestly. However, infinite realities does not mean infinite possibilities. There can be constraints. Given an infinite number of realities, certain things could very well never happen. If it is impossible to cross between universes, it is impossible in all universes. There are is an infinite amount of number between 0 and 1, but exactly non of those values are equal to 2. Impossible things are impossible.

I'm not an OP and just landed on this thread. My question goes to Physicists and anyone well versed in the subject... Does infinite multiverses mean there's another reality that is exactly the same as this one - exactly, every single detail, every single headline in the newspaper, same dates for the same historical events etc, except I'm someone who is wealthy and happy? Or is this just a pop science misinterpretation on the topic?

>>8944656
I still don't entirely get string theory; the only article I found about it suggests a multiverse

>>8940689
If we exist in a multiverse, travel or interaction between possible universes would necessarily be impossible, because you would then need multiple multiverses to account for all of the inter-universal possibilities, and so on.

>>8945124
Infinity would imply so but I'm not a big fan of that whole "In another world I am rich and happy and super smart and have a huge dick and a beautiful wife etc" 1. That's just dumb escapism and 2. the circumstances resulting in your elevation of status and mood must come from somewhere and they must affect the larger world. That means a slightly different timeline than the one we are accustomed to. Maybe your parents won a lottery when in our universe they didn't. But regardless, there is only one true reality for you and you should work hard to make yourself happy and wealthy and not say "ah fuck it, who cares, I'm rich in another universe"

Personally I'm more of a fan of the idea that the sperm that hit my mothers egg when my dad fucked her was a different one than mine, giving them and the outside world a chance of a normal child and a productive member of society and not a fat depressed autist.

>>8945124
It would mean there is an infinite number of universes like that.

It *could* mean they are ALL like that. This maybe the only pattern you can get from such a simple core reaction.

Granted, there's a lot of a varieties of multiverse theory, and it often gets conflated with many worlds theory, as we see in this thread.

File: relativistic atoms.gif (8KB, 373x374px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 373x374px

>>8945169
>fat depressed autist.
I feel you man, i'm exactly like that, with the bonus of being a third worlder.
I just want out of this, i want a nice life you know, but I don't want to die either because I know I'll just disappear forever and honestly don't know which is worse, my miserable life or just dying. Maybe in the future thousands of years after I die, an alien civilization that is benevolent will pass by Earth, land here and recreate my already long dead brain, and I'll wake up suddenly, and they'll grant me my wishes. Too bad that probaly ain't happening and we're all doomed to suffer in vain.

>>8945181
I mean, they would recreate my brain and take me to a parallel universe where I can be happy.

>>8940689
I wish theoretical physicists would address physical problems instead of metaphysical ones.

>>8945124
>Does infinite multiverses mean there's another reality that is exactly the same as this one - exactly, every single detail, every single headline in the newspaper, same dates for the same historical events etc, except I'm someone who is wealthy and happy? Or is this just a pop science misinterpretation on the topic?
It's a misinterpretation. The problem is the word "I". It's not you who is wealthy and happy it's another person - someone like a twin of you.

>>8945124
>>8945170
My bad, I didn't finish reading that post... It suggests there may be an infinite number of universes like that, as well as an infinite number where you are worse off, assuming there is indeed variety in the universes.

It could just as well be that each and every universe in that infinity is identical, and thus you are miserable in an infinite number of universes and no worse nor better off in any of them.

But, however identical, someone in another universe isn't really you anyways, so it doesn't much matter either way.

However, that gets a bit dicier in a many worlds interpretation, where there maybe some causal relation between all the worlds.

>>8944306
Every verse is just a wave.
Every verse makes the whole.
String some verses together to get a multi-verse.
String some multi verses together and you have the omni verse.
Who controls the verses?
The writer.

>>8945200
>metaphysics
No such thing.

>>8945134
You won't entierly get string theory without being a theoretical physicist. And the multiverse suggested by heterotic M-theory isn't anything like the crackpot bullshit most people here discuss. Pretty much every significant string theorist has written about it. Susskind, Witten, Schwarz, Polchinski, even Gross. Everyone worthwhile to listen to explained the reasoning behind multiverse.
Anthropic principle is quite a bit surprising (especially coming from Joe) as it is pretty much tells you not to ask questions about Nature. In other words, it's bullshit.

>>8945340
Not him but I'm curious about the Universe and everything works. I watched tons of documentaries on string theory, but they never get into any of the math, all they do is talk in metaphors for their dumb viewers to understand the theory part, without explaining how exactly the shit goes down. That being said, can you recommend me a book, documentary or whatever other media on Quantum Physics/Mechanics, as well as as String/M theory?

>>8945446
Popsci can't get QM right, why do you expect it to get strings right? There's no shortcut to understanding. You learn the math, then you can understand. There are dozens of resources on how to get your math up to the level to be able to understand strings, but math alone isn't enough- you need that little something most mathematicians lack. When i say you have to be a theoretical physicist, i mean it. That being said, bosonic string theory is undergrad-level (not quite) in terms of math so that might be your fitst milestone. But you absolutely need to understand QM first. Otherwise you miss on big part of the beauty of strings

>>8945537
>>8945446
As for books, may stringwiki.org be your best friend. Personally, i reccommend Zwiebach's textbook as a very gentle intro- doesn't get easier than that and has very nice excercises. After that Green,Schwarz,Witten is the standard textbook for a reason. I didn't read Becker&Witten's update on the canonical text, but i hear good things about it from people i respect so you might check that one out. It might be worth to supplement this book with Polchinski's because it presents certain types of string theory with greater detail (but beware of the not-great non-perturbative parts and algebraic geometry).

I would reccommend to stay away from Kiritsis as it lacks intuitive explanations.

ITT shills from other universes try to convince us that there's no other universes

>>8940689
by necessity there would. also be infinite universes where no one every traveled there. and also infinite ones no one could travel to. That's ignoring the fact that this sort of multiverse has no actual scientific backing and is 100% scifi