Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Big Think)   If you don't like gods, you better have a multiverse   (bigthink.com) divider line
    More: Silly, Universe, String theory, Multiverse, Time, Gottfried Leibniz, Space, superstring theory, advent of the Multiverse hypothesis  
•       •       •

1210 clicks; posted to STEM » on 18 Aug 2022 at 5:54 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



33 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-08-18 6:21:56 PM  
Even a cursory glance at TFA will show that it is in fact shiatting all over the concept that subby purports it to propose.
 
2022-08-18 6:31:30 PM  
We can do family feud with that one.

If you don't like _blank_, you better have a Multiverse.
 
2022-08-18 6:52:13 PM  

ippolit: We can do family feud with that one.

If you don't like _blank_, you better have a Multiverse.


It's so universal!
 
2022-08-18 7:03:45 PM  
The Jews had that covered millennia ago when they declared that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The Earth:  Everything we can sense, understand, and explain.
The Heavens: Everything else.
 
2022-08-18 7:19:50 PM  
If someone you're interested in talks with you about it, you can get with them pretty easily if you just nod along.
 
2022-08-18 8:17:57 PM  
My God would never miss a chance to get more contributors in the ultimate opportunities presented. Nah he/she is in the gold either way. Kinda indifferent unless its the holidays.

--------------not enough rolling papers in existence to read below but that is Gods job anyway--------------


Maybe we are all on an expanding horizon in a 2 dimensional space/time existence
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-might-be-the-first-observational-evidence-that-our-early-universe-was-a-hologram

Or this guy here he is so easy to listen to on a buster doobie with mushroom chaser.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTx98PUW6lE
But anyway my God would never ever miss up an ever expanding and occurence of  group of contributors just that simple.

Or this guy here he is so easy to listen to on a buster doobie with mushroom chaser.
Nima Arkani-Hamed and to think a pie recipe is over my head oh well. Back to the shaite in farming mushrooms.
 
2022-08-18 8:23:34 PM  
It's easy enough to imagine an unknown process generating new unique universes without having to know what it is. There literally has to be some process that creates universes or we wouldn't be here to contemplate it.

The other option is there is only one and it just is. That's all we have actual evidence for, but we also have evidence our universe will someday reach full entropy. If that's true then that means a universe can "die". If something can die then because we are here it also means universes must be born. Which brings us back to there must be a process of either birthing new universes or recycling the existing one.

What's pure hokum is the comic book idea of a multiverse where there's a universe spawned for every possible variable in every universe. The reason this is impossible is the same reason time travel to the past is impossible: The energy requirements for such a system to work would have to be so mind-boggling massive that it makes spawning entire universes trivial.

Think about what the comic version would have us believe: That every time your butt itches a slew of new universes are born as every probability of your reaction to said itchiness spawns a universe's worth of matter and energy that's a perfect twin to the existing one except for whether (and how) you scratched. And bow that it exists it's also constantly spawning even more copies. That's an exponential energy demand that only ever increases.

Nothing in our current sphere of knowledge supports such a conclusion.
 
2022-08-18 8:35:35 PM  
You only need a goose.
i.redd.itView Full Size
 
2022-08-18 8:43:34 PM  

Mouser: The Jews had that covered millennia ago when they declared that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The Earth:  Everything we can sense, understand, and explain.
The Heavens: Everything else.


My assumption:

"How am I supposed to tell them that there was another universe, it died after 32.8 billion years (?), and since I was all that was left after... I made the next one?! These two do nothing but screw, and screw, and screw! He put her EYE OUT! She got flirty and I had to shove his insides back in him! They're insane! And I tried to get them to understand the number zero, Z-E-R-O! ZERO!

"And...?"

"I spent four hours picking her brain off a tree! She beat it out!"

"....Magic?"

"Why not?.... I'm all out of ideas at this point..."
 
2022-08-18 9:01:29 PM  

Boudyro: It's easy enough to imagine an unknown process generating new unique universes without having to know what it is. There literally has to be some process that creates universes or we wouldn't be here to contemplate it.

The other option is there is only one and it just is. That's all we have actual evidence for, but we also have evidence our universe will someday reach full entropy. If that's true then that means a universe can "die". If something can die then because we are here it also means universes must be born. Which brings us back to there must be a process of either birthing new universes or recycling the existing one.

What's pure hokum is the comic book idea of a multiverse where there's a universe spawned for every possible variable in every universe. The reason this is impossible is the same reason time travel to the past is impossible: The energy requirements for such a system to work would have to be so mind-boggling massive that it makes spawning entire universes trivial.

Think about what the comic version would have us believe: That every time your butt itches a slew of new universes are born as every probability of your reaction to said itchiness spawns a universe's worth of matter and energy that's a perfect twin to the existing one except for whether (and how) you scratched. And bow that it exists it's also constantly spawning even more copies. That's an exponential energy demand that only ever increases.

Nothing in our current sphere of knowledge supports such a conclusion.


A line includes numerous points that can included in at least one more dimension. Each point implies some number of new axes, or even planes. My odd conceptualization is that timelines have innumerable points and all this butt itching simply mark points of departure/inclusion into these "new universes." A fateful butt itch incident will be included in many timelines, but how that butt is scratched will determine the subsequent timeline. From there, my interpretation is that we are all time travelers, navigating through all these points and free to choose the universe we want to wind up in.

And each snapshot of a universe along that timeline includes all the energy of our universe. The next point on that timeline, with its whole universe, does too. An infinite number of universes are on that timeline, for as many small segments of time you care to make, each with finite energy.

Of course we perceive energy as finite in this universe we are in, and all those universes can't take or add or share in the energy and mass of this universe, but there can be infinite and discrete universes, each with their own amounts of energy.

This is not provable at all. And is not consequential, probably. And it is certainly not science. You can call it hokum. It is an idea that pop culture is warming up to and catching up with. Still science fiction. You and I are probably not having the same discussion by a long shot. It is no secret that we are not perceiving or accounting for time correctly, for some reason.

What might be exciting for people, and for subby, is that there are implications for the power of free will. There is no predestination if every person holds the power to change the universe. And they do.

I see little harm in thinking that way. Seeing the world in cause and effect terms is quite a leap from thinking that all the energy and time in the universe are controlled by a bearded man in the sky.
 
2022-08-18 9:04:13 PM  
time only seems to flow in one direction on a macro level. causality breaks down in the quantum world. maybe our part of the universe where space exists and time flows in one direction is statistically insignificant. maybe the true nature of the universe is infinite chaos and the conditions for existence as we know it is just a tiny blip in the depths of that chaos
 
2022-08-18 9:40:36 PM  

gnarlywizzard: time only seems to flow in one direction on a macro level. causality breaks down in the quantum world. maybe our part of the universe where space exists and time flows in one direction is statistically insignificant. maybe the true nature of the universe is infinite chaos and the conditions for existence as we know it is just a tiny blip in the depths of that chaos


I can imagine that all of that is true. And even if it is not, it could appear that way.

And we could even say that it does not matter because we are only going to affect a very small part of the known universe before it is all expected to "end" in billions of billions of years anyway.

Not subby, but I do find myself interested in timeline/metaverse/multiverse conceptualizations vs. religious conceptualizations.... for all kinds of reasons. I don't think it is science, but it is not antagonistic to science.
 
2022-08-18 9:47:17 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Apparently the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum physics is taken pretty seriously by real physicists, with 18% considering it their "favorite".
 
2022-08-18 10:04:29 PM  

LizardPeople: [Fark user image image 509x598]
Apparently the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum physics is taken pretty seriously by real physicists, with 18% considering it their "favorite".


Unless they are the idiots, the many-worlds option doesn't quite mean the same thing in physics as it does in comic Books.
 
2022-08-18 10:08:20 PM  
Also, are these actual physicists or professors who have been sidelined by society and teach the most basic shiat so the rest can go do research?  Or are they not even that?

Because Physics does not pay well unless you're at the seriously-top farking end of things.  Or you're more of a salesman and develop a cult of personality.
 
2022-08-18 10:38:52 PM  

Mouser: The Jews had that covered millennia ago when they declared that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The Earth:  Everything we can sense, understand, and explain.
The Heavens: Everything else.


If it cannot be sensed/observed, then it effectively does not exist and caring about it is a waste of time.
 
2022-08-18 10:56:35 PM  
he German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz said, "The first question that should rightly be asked is, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'"

He sounds like an asshole. But that's pretty much every philosopher.
 
2022-08-18 11:00:56 PM  

Mouser: The Jews had that covered millennia ago when they declared that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.


So God created heaven and earth how many billions of years ago? And how many trillions of galaxies not solar systems but galaxies existed billions of years before God got around to creating Earth? I'm a procrastinator but damn.
 
2022-08-18 11:02:52 PM  

aungen: LizardPeople: [Fark user image image 509x598]
Apparently the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum physics is taken pretty seriously by real physicists, with 18% considering it their "favorite".

Unless they are the idiots, the many-worlds option doesn't quite mean the same thing in physics as it does in comic Books.


What's the meaningful difference, aside from expected fictional caveats like being able to travel between worlds?
 
2022-08-18 11:06:15 PM  
If we could take a microscope down to the absolute max resolution to where further depth would have no perceivable interaction with our own spacetime, the true definition of a point in space... just beyond that event horizon is us looking back at ourselves from a holycraposecond ago. It's not going to be an absurdly different universe. How big do you think the difference is between the dimensions containing all the points in spacetime across a single neuron in your brain? But when the focus kicks in and we see that eye blink people gon shit
 
2022-08-18 11:16:37 PM  
I do not care if there's one universe or an infinite number of parallel universes. What I want to know  is what came before the universe. If it came from a Big Bang, where did that original singularity come from? If it came from the end of a previous universe where did that one come from? Is it turtles all the way down? And, if so, where did the turtles come from? That's what boggles my mind.
 
2022-08-19 12:03:49 AM  

Mouser: The Jews had that covered millennia ago when they declared that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The Earth:  Everything we can sense, understand, and explain.
The Heavens: Everything else.


That concept dates back tens of thousands of years before Judaism. It's Animism. The idea is that everything exists in two realms simultaneously, the physical and the spiritual.
 
2022-08-19 1:06:27 AM  

Mugato: he German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz said, "The first question that should rightly be asked is, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'"

He sounds like an asshole. But that's pretty much every philosopher.


Not at all.  Lots of philosophers don't bother with questions like that and get right into other stuff like what is the something that is.

Hell, Descartes got to cogito ergo sum before adding a bunch of god stuff (possibly to avoid a stake) but even that is questionable because centuries before the Buddhists got to an even stickier wicket because it's arguable there can actually be no entity sum-ing the cogito!  (Suck it roman guards from LoB.)

It's a hell of a biz.
 
2022-08-19 1:50:25 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-19 2:32:23 AM  
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

Everything can be reduced down to a point and then no further, ending in what is called a brute fact. Theists say god(s) are the brute fact but I stop one step before they do and say the universe is the brute fact. The universe just is and unlike god(s), I have firsthand evidence that the universe is real.
 
2022-08-19 2:42:59 AM  

Befuddled: 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

Everything can be reduced down to a point and then no further, ending in what is called a brute fact. Theists say god(s) are the brute fact but I stop one step before they do and say the universe is the brute fact. The universe just is and unlike god(s), I have firsthand evidence that the universe is real.


Eh despite what I said earlier, one very possible explanation for comic book multiverses being possible would be the simulation theory.

If that's the case then it IS trivial to generate universes and their offshoots. In fact the simulation would require it for comparison.

Would mean it would also be trivial for the creator of such a simulation to move things between them.
 
2022-08-19 5:27:44 AM  

emtwo: Even a cursory glance at TFA will show that it is in fact shiatting all over the concept that subby purports it to propose.


I don't know. It kind of felt all over the place. It started out talking about not needing the existence of God to have our universe but then accused "multiverse proponents" of acting that way without providing any evidence or examples.
 
2022-08-19 7:46:07 AM  

Slypork: I do not care if there's one universe or an infinite number of parallel universes. What I want to know  is what came before the universe. If it came from a Big Bang, where did that original singularity come from? If it came from the end of a previous universe where did that one come from? Is it turtles all the way down? And, if so, where did the turtles come from? That's what boggles my mind.


This is what I came to say. Even if there are multiverses, where did they come from?
 
2022-08-19 8:39:56 AM  

johnphantom: Slypork: I do not care if there's one universe or an infinite number of parallel universes. What I want to know  is what came before the universe. If it came from a Big Bang, where did that original singularity come from? If it came from the end of a previous universe where did that one come from? Is it turtles all the way down? And, if so, where did the turtles come from? That's what boggles my mind.

This is what I came to say. Even if there are multiverses, where did they come from?


i.chzbgr.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-19 10:35:01 AM  

Befuddled: 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

Everything can be reduced down to a point and then no further, ending in what is called a brute fact. Theists say god(s) are the brute fact but I stop one step before they do and say the universe is the brute fact. The universe just is and unlike god(s), I have firsthand evidence that the universe is real.


you're not stopping one step before theism though. you are describing the exact same thing: an uncreated, necessary being.

the difference is that theists often (but not always) insist that their uncreated, necessary being of God has a personality or will to act.

the scientific view of the uncreated, necessary being of the universe is that it is an amoral natural process that acts without will or conscious experience.

it's not really possible to scientifically prove the universe wasnt created, but we can illistrate many reasons why it didn't have to be.

the crux of the question is "does the universe evolve according to an ethic, or does it evolve in a blindly amoral way?"

while the answer might seem obvious to scientifically minded people, it gets complicated when you remember that conscious beings are parts of the universe too. the thoughts guiding the actions of humans is exactly a description of the universe evolving in an ethical way

so we have uncovered only one notable difference between our definitions of god and the universe: God is an uncreated, necessary being with a personality and will always

the universe is an uncreated, necessary being with a personality and will sometimes

which seems to be a state that favors theism, but thats not all

from there, the argument comes down to panpsychism. does all matter have consciousness or at least the potential for consciousness when an arbitrary level of complexity and interrelatedness is reached? and if so does this imply a universal consciousness which could fit the bill for an uncreated, necessary being with will and ability to act?

the question of god ultimately lies in the previous clause.

panpsychism could be true and still no universal mind could exist. free particles could be picking and choosing their paths through space with gusto and hunger, galaxies could be writing poems about farts... and still god as defined above might not exist. maybe it cant..

I'm gonna stop here cause I could just keep smoking more weed and writing more paragraphs lol
 
2022-08-19 1:19:57 PM  
media4.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-19 4:25:40 PM  

New Farkin User Name: aungen: LizardPeople: [Fark user image image 509x598]
Apparently the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum physics is taken pretty seriously by real physicists, with 18% considering it their "favorite".

Unless they are the idiots, the many-worlds option doesn't quite mean the same thing in physics as it does in comic Books.

What's the meaningful difference, aside from expected fictional caveats like being able to travel between worlds?


Manifestation, mostly.

Extreme circumstances may trigger a situation where things we consider to be constants, have to be shuffled around to handle the extreme - including in dimensions we don't really understand yet.

It's fairly easy to get a correction / quantum behavior on a small scale.  But much more difficult on a macro scale.

Maybe one way to think of it is how light travels all possible paths between a source and a sink. But you can force that path, and if the situation is right it can even pop through or around a path block, taking that path anyway.

Or an electron tunneling out of an extreme energy environment with a very thin steep wall blocking its progress.  We've turned some of these tricks into nearly every-day things.

Silicone / chip behavior for example.  But it would be really impressive to see a macro scale shift of something visible.  I'm not sure that can happen. It seems to need to happen on very small scales.

I would love to see something refined enough to abuse that wiggle room that the universe has given us, deploying it on a refined scale in sync for a macro effect.  But we do not yet understand the wiggle room we are given.

So we're a long ways off for that. I suspect.
 
2022-08-19 6:36:04 PM  

Mugato: Mouser: The Jews had that covered millennia ago when they declared that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

So God created heaven and earth how many billions of years ago? And how many trillions of galaxies not solar systems but galaxies existed billions of years before God got around to creating Earth? I'm a procrastinator but damn.


I like to think of it as taking pride in one's craftsmanship.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.