s/fur
If the multiverse is infinite, then doesn't that mean that any imagined god exists, and the only limitation to having your ideal god carry out your will is to have your god notice your universe?
In which case, how would one attract the attention of something outside our universe?
by being outside their universe
Please think a moment about the word infinity. If we ignore that the multiverse theory is just a basic idea without proof whatsoever we will just assume that it's true. Now if a god were able to read the information of a universe and took anything longer than 0s he wouldn't be able to read your universe because infinite universes exist and it would therefore take infinite time to observe these universes.
Now if these gods can actually read the universes instantly he might recognize your universe, and then you realize how fucking big your universe is. Humans are probably so irrelevant in our universe that even the leader of the entire world wouldn't be worth a second look. It's a matter of chance how many civilizations exist in our universe, to most we are probably uncivilized chimps.
That being said the possibly best way to be noticed would be to get into contact with a more notable species and ask them.
God is a human-made concept.
There is absolutely no necessity to have any kind of supernatural entity for the universe or, if there are more than one, all universes to exist.
A god is nothing else than a delusion made up by uneducated, highly emotional, primitive humans to explain things they didn't understand. In fact, it's still that way today.
What would a god be anyway?
A god could perhaps be a spacetime anomaly that cannot be removed without changing the topology of spacetime.
For example, if one somehow created a bridge of spacetime between two points, it could move around via the distortion of spacetime, but it could not be removed without changing the topology of spacetime.
Taking that idea further, perhaps a complex structure; an entire organism in fact, could be made out of countless splits and joints out of spacetime that can only be reversed by whatever arcane means created them.
It'd be like an orgami swan glued to the same paper us graphite stick figures are on.
How would you react then if sightings of gods and demons and shit were actually aliens with advanced technology and people couldn't make sense of what happened so they started calling it magic / wonders?
multiverse isn't infinite because god is gay
There's no necessity, but it's not an impossibility either.
There are no sightings of gods or demons.
If I observed something I don't understand, I'd say "I don't understand this, but I'll try to figure it out."
I certainly would not just conclude there's something magical or supernatural going on.
You're right. But from all what we can observe and messure, the probability of the existence of a god-like something is pretty close to zero.
The fact that we haven't seen any gods is actually a problem much the same as Fermi's paradox.
Our knowledge of biology suggests that life will expand indefinitely, and we know of no limitation to the expansion of life.
Yet, rampant expansion of an extremely successful life form has yet to consume our world or even show evidence of its existence.
Just as we have no reason to believe we can't conquer the universe and yet no one has beaten us to it, we have no reason to believe we can't conquer the multiverse and yet we haven't seen some galaxy-sized monster pop in and eat some stars to fuel itself.
>we have no reason to believe we can't conquer the multiverse
There are some physical restrictions.
>If I observed something I don't understand, I'd say "I don't understand this, but I'll try to figure it out."
>I certainly would not just conclude there's something magical or supernatural going on.
Well because you lived in the modern world, you've got a LOT of reference knowledge at your disposal. If you on the other hand had no formal education, would run in the wilderness every day in order to avoid starvation, and suddenly weird shit happens you've maxed out your imagination pretty quickly. It's stuff you cannot understand, and this is where you go to your local shaman because he's like the smartest man out of your tribe and you tell him the whole story and he's got a nice explaination for it, as usual he knows his shit, so you believe him.
You're absolutely right.
That's basically how religions in general were established.
But humandkind has made some progress since the tribes and shamans, didn't they.
So I'd stick to my statement.
Proposed physical limitations vanish as fast as they're made.
Besides, it's silly to assume that there's no way to get out the universe given that the universe presumably started from a whole lot of energy escaping from somewhere else.
And the very idea of being in a particular universe would really start to fall apart in situations where communication with the external universe is minimal, thus quantum mechanics takes over for even macroscopic things.
Perhaps the best way to guess what our physical limitations are is to look at the unanswered questions; unanswered questions tend to mean a physical impossibility is in fact possible.
The birth of our universe requires either the spontaneous creation of new energy, or the arrival of energy from another universe; both impossible according to current knowledge, but doubtlessly at least one is possible.
Well then what would you consider a being which is powerful enought to destroy earth if it felt like it.
Something you cannot put into cathegories - maybe a big light or something, something you've never seen before.
What would you call it if it demanded that humans should build shrines and sacrifice every second child that is born?
My thesis is that a living being may be (rightfully) considered a god by another population if the power is extremely unbalanced.
one of the primary principles of multiverse theory is that you can not, ever, under any circumstances, move from one universe to another. you can't even get information from another universe. the barrier is impassable.
/thread
i'm not reading all this shit, here have a fur
>If the multiverse is infinite, then doesn't that mean that any imagined god exists
No. Just because you can imagine something, it doesn't mean it is possible.
>the only limitation to having your ideal god carry out your will is to have your god notice your universe?
Not necessarily. It could be impossible for something in one universe to interact with another universe.
your multiverses, dark energy/matter and other shit breaks the law of parsimony
i wish Occam's razor cut off your testicles you morons
get out from the science
...
see
It's assumed to be impossible that multiversal travel is impossible, because if it was, we'd see multiversal travellers.
But Fermi's Paradox is a thing, so why should the multiverse be busy when the universe is silent?
And it doesn't even make sense for both multiversal travel and conservation of energy to be impossible, because that would make the birth of our universe impossible too. Only one or the other being possible is enough, but neither simply won't do.
Conservation of energy appears to be the strictest law of nature, so I bet it's multiversal travel that's possible.
You're in a furry porn / pseudo science thread.
What did you expect?
"simulations" and other shit is there also among the all other shit starting with einstein theory which is just wrong
another geek is seeking for black hole shine, what wrong with you guy, they do interact with outer objects via gravity already what the fuck
>all the people ITT assuming things about how the universe/multiverse works, with zero supporting logic
No one's even given the slightest reason they believe multiversal travel is impossible, not even the expected fallacies such as appeal to authority.
>t's silly to assume that there's no way to get out the universe given that the universe presumably started from a whole lot of energy escaping from somewhere else.
No it's not. This assumption is based on scientific facts. It's a conclusion of our observations, not a pessimistic worldview.
>thus quantum mechanics takes over for even macroscopic things.
No, they don't.
>unanswered questions tend to mean a physical impossibility is in fact possible
No. We know our stuff by now. There might be unanswered questions, but the laws of physics won't change for our universe. Ever.
>The birth of our universe requires either the spontaneous creation of new energy, or the arrival of energy from another universe
I don't know where you've learned this. We actually DO NOT KNOW how universes come to existence.
>prove the null hypothesis
Demonstrate that multiversal travel is possible.
The existence of a god would suggest the existence of a being that is able to interact with anything in the universe and at the same time not interact at all - I am not just referring to presence, if "God" was to "snipe" his powers towards a certain point in the universe, to make any "god like" effect it would require a lot of energy, for such effect to travel the universe would require a lot of energy, and for god to have a sentience he would need a circuit board, we have brains, our sentience and "conscience" is a product of neuronal patterns (basicly electricity), so yes, maybe god does has a "brain" only made of protons and electrons, but then again ¿What laws allow you to keep together such contraption? To say that "there are laws of physics that we may have not discovered", true, like dark matter that was discovered recently, but then again, laws of physics do not have favorites, they work universally, so this brian of god would have problems just being a brain, suggesting just makes the matter more complicated with "possible, if this, possible if that".
I am not saying that because that it would be terrible complicated for a god to exist that it is better to forget the matter, but because of the complexity of its creation, what civilization, being, or natural phenomena would have the energy needed or even better, the reason to do this. If it was easy, we, humanity, would be or create (or at least project to create) gods, yet it just seems pointless to try.
It's kind of like a star wars death star scenario, sure, it can exist, but it's existence is kind of baffling!!
Quantum mechanics takes over for macroscopic things in situations where that macroscopic thing does not interact either directly or indirectly with the rest of the universe.
This should be obvious anyway; alpha particles have been demonstrated to be subject to quantum mechanics, despite being made of 12 fermions which are interacting with each other at an extremely high frequency.
The internal interactions of a collection of particles do not affect how quantum mechanics affects the collection from the perspective of an external observer, because quantum mechanics are all relative.
Also, try to think of an origin for the universe that does not violate any of our current laws of physics yet still agrees with your assumption that multiversal travel is impossible.
See
after seeing furfags on the internet, im pretty sure that god has abandoned us
>See 744951251
Saying "I bet x is true" and that things "simply won't do" is not a demonstration that multiversal travel is possible. You need to actually test your hypothesis.
...
>No. We know our stuff by now. There might be unanswered questions, but the laws of physics won't change for our universe. Ever.
So what about false vacuum?
Ya know, all that silly talk about the higgs field not being stable and all of that.
Yes it is a theory, but in all honesty, everything in science it in a "theory state" due to a "law" of science can be change if sufficient evidence is brought in to change that law. No such evidence has presented itself for multi universe of god and until then there shall be no interest in the matter.
>No such evidence has presented itself for multi universe of god and until then there shall be no interest in the matter.
no_fun_allowed.jpg
The reasoning was X is possible, because !X is impossible, as either X or Y are a requirement for Z, and Z is true, but Y is impossible.
In this case:
X = multiversal travel
Y = violation of conservation of energy
Z = the birth of our universe
If you can figure out any way that Z can occur with neither X or Y, be my guest.
>be my guest
The onus is on you to show that it must be either X or Y and that it was not Y. The lack of an alternative explanation does not validate your premise.
You can't think up something outside the multiverse and it will defacto exist.
Someone like Dr Manhattan however.
You obviously don't know anything about quantum mechanics.
You're just stringing words together wich you read somewhere and you think have something to do with the topic.
Your first name is not possibly Jordan?
The so called "false vacuum" is not even remotely close to a scientific theory.
The pricipal of gravitational pulling due to mass-induced distortion of space is a physical law. If you can find a single place in the universe where this law is invalid, you'd change everything we know. Good luck.
If a god were constructed out of spacetime itself, it would still obey the laws of physics, but incredibly loosely; the ordinary matter and energy contained by it could be given strange behaviours, and the being itself would be impervious to harm from anything but the kind of machinery required to shape spacetime to form a god in the first place (there are some ideas for how to alter the topology of spacetime, but the energy requirements are ludicrous).
>Quantum mechanics takes over for macroscopic things in situations where that macroscopic thing does not interact either directly or indirectly with the rest of the universe
Quantum mechanics only describes things smaller than a buckyball, any larger in mass then the atomic or molecular orbitals are not longer quantized but smeared together and act continuously as classic physics describes
Asking me to prove that it must be either X or Y is asking me to prove the null hypothesis, hypocrite.
That's the entire point of me asking you to provide a single example of universe creation with neither X or Y, so that I don't have to prove that which cannot be proven.
And given that Y is "violation of conservation of energy", the single most certain and consistent law of nature, it's unlikely to be Y. Sure, I can't prove that it's X and not Y, but the falsity of X is merely an assumption while all of science is built around the falsity of Y.
>Multiverse exists
>There is a version of Earth where each individual species evolved to be a bipedal intelligent lifeform
>We are the ones where ancient man evolved into modern man
>One with wolfgirls, sharkgirls, Tigergirls, etc...
>Find way to go between dimensions
>Designate a collective planet for diplomacy
>Somewhere in the multiverse there is an Earth with real furries from other dimensions
>post states that X is true, with reasoning
>reply with a statement that X is false, as if it somehow counts as reasoning
You could have just said "nuh uh" and that wouldn't have made a difference.
I'd fuck ALL the rabbits.
>Asking me to prove that it must be either X or Y is asking me to prove the null hypothesis, hypocrite.
You are the one attempting a proof by impossibility. It is not my fault that you took this onus upon yourself.
>That's the entire point of me asking you to provide a single example of universe creation with neither X or Y
Provide a single example of universe creation with either X or Y.
>And given that Y is "violation of conservation of energy", the single most certain and consistent law of nature, it's unlikely to be Y
It isn't as certain as you might think. We have reason to think that the laws of nature as we currently understand them do not apply to the beginning of the universe. Laws of nature are merely descriptions of what we observe to occur, and the conditions of the early universe would have been grossly different from the conditions today.
If you actually understood or taken any college coursework in quantum mechanics then youd understand the point being made
there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2, but none of them are 3...
unfortunately even an infinite multiverse doesn't predicate the existence of any silly thing you can think of - only permutations that work within the bounds of natural laws will exist.
>If the multiverse is infinite, then doesn't that mean that any imagined god exists, and the only limitation to having your ideal god carry out your will is to have your god notice your universe?
No
People with undergraduate degrees in physics are simply awful at handling tasks outside the scope of their degree.
Seriously, it's an absolute nightmare trying to get them to wrap their heads around a difficult problem they have not been taught the answer to.
Given that in their third year they're taught to do things like do quantum mechanical calculations for a hydrogen atom in normal conditions, do you think they'll have even the slightest understanding of what happens to a macroscopic object that spends an hour in a perfect void? (ignoring virtual particles; they don't matter for sensible, entanglement-based quantum mechanics interpretations).
One good example of physicists with undergraduate degrees being idiots is when I created a difficult physics puzzle, by making a set of requirements for a universe then devising laws of physics and/or contortions of spacetime to satisfy those requirements.
The requirements would become increasingly difficult to satisfy, as I was unsatisfied with the complexity of my own answers.
Eventually, I couldn't devise an answer to my own puzzle, and so I posed the puzzle to others.
The people with physics qualifications handled the puzzle far worse than anyone else; that is, their answers were all the same, and all relied on the same logical error:
>X and Y must be true
>X and Y contradict each other in ordinary space (the whole point of the puzzle)
>reword Y as Z, to get the following:
>X and Z must be true
>X and Y contradict each other, but that doesn't matter because Y isn't needed
It's as dumb as it sounds, one can only wonder what mental gymnastics is needed to think it's fine to say that.
The right answer took me literally hours to validate, because it relied on the infinitesimally small details of fractalline distortions of space.
...
what is this philosifurry?
more like physifurry
It makes a lot of sense that furries are into this because this is the only way they could ever sink their dicks into an actual 3d furry.
>Philosifurs
>Fursics
You guys suck at this
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
I'm not gonna bother reading through the thread so this has probably already been brought up but, in your hypothetical of an infinite multiverse where different universes can interact with eachother, literally everything would be happening everywhere at any given point. There would be an infinite number of civilizations who SPECIFICALLY want to destroy earth in our universe, and an infinite number trying to stop them. There would be an infinite number of everything. Even if only gods can cross the gap between universes, there's a similar problem. The whole premise kinda collapses in on itself.
off to make breakfast
and start my day
i hope yours goes well
...
...
...
But the infinite malevolence towards Earth would be diluted across infinite Earths.
Logically, the average number of invaders arriving into each universe is the same as the average number of invaders each universe sends out.
Some will get less, some will get more.
I don't think you understand how infinity works. Infinity means literally everything. There is an infinite number of everything. There would be an infinite number of species attacking earth from OUR universe specifically, and every other one for that matter, along with every other possible thing that could be happening. You can't say it gets split because there are infinite earths. If you have infinite hotel rooms, and you give me all the odd numbered rooms, we both have infinite hotel rooms.
>tfw you actually try to draw fur, then you end up with this and all of your motivation drowns the moment you see others drawings....
I mean its rough but good enough to tell its not just a meme
You shouldn't give up. Practise makes perfect
...
Infinite doesn't mean anything you can imagine exists.
There are logical limits.
There are an infinite set of numbers between 2 and 3, but none of them are 4.
I fucking hate furries and think they should kill themselves, but god damn they have some of the best bondage porn.
...
...
...
...
...
No matter how many universes, impossibilities still exist. Things always have to follow rules, I.E. In a list of 'infinite numbers' there would be no letters, because that would disobey the rules. Not saying whether or not god exists, but if you're an atheist who believes in the multiverse theory you must believe that having a god is not possible.
...
...
...
...
...
Sauce?!
dunno, saved it from a mouse thread on /trash/
...
...
...
...
>doesn't that mean that any imagined god exists
Why does a thing have to be imagined to exist? What if I told you there exists things outside human imagination? Things which we cannot see because we cannot imagine their existence. Our minds cannot form the necessary symbols required to represent them. And so they pass without our ever being aware of their existence.
...
The multiverse is still governed my physics. If no formulation of physics allows for a being to perceive or interact with an adjacent universe, then this concept is impossible.
...
At which point, you would have to define the term 'god', to delineate what you say cannot exist as opposed to any number of beings with powers and abilities far beyond our own current capacity.
If you can't believe in a god, but how about a Q? Or any other being that seems to be similarly omnipotent?
Or is mankind supposed to be the most powerful being in the universe(s).
...
...
...
More of her?