Does Sup Forums believe in multiverse theory?

Does Sup Forums believe in multiverse theory?

Nope.

I want to so, so bad. I also want to believe in ghosts and aliens. I need some kind of proof though or it's as silly as any religion

Awh yeah dude

its a fun story time tool but not really

>kind of proof though
Bad news for you user, science already debunked it with research and studies.

No, the time to believe in it is when there's evidence for it.

I think it is likely that multiple universes exist.

I feel like I got a few second chances. I remember "dreaming" about something horrible that happened and feeling all like o god what have i done but then "wake up" to another new reality where that bad thing didn't happen but is otherwise the same.

Nah not bad news -- any proof of non-existence would just prove my belief so it's as expected. It would just be cool.

with research AND studies? wew lad that's big science right there

Yeah, I didn't believe in ghost at all...until I saw one.
Interesting experience I must say, considering I knew the descended.
First I thought I must have just dreamed it all, but shit was moved physically and I was later informed that others also saw him that same night.

...

Half of me does, half of me doesn't. There are many ways to look at it. Some theories and maths require the use of dimensions, not so much extra realities, but then also suggest that many possible states are wholly real, just not realized. As in, everything exists like some kind of holographic sticker, and depending on how you "shine" the "light of reality" on that shitty sticker, a shitty or great reality or possibility becomes realized/is exactly the case. While that isn't an entire other universe, if you had the magical fancy means, you could bring affect to the microscopic scale, so the macroscopic composite turned into an uneaten apple, instead of a rotting one. So you've got your shitty holographic sticker, your unevenly rising yet incredibly massive souffle, your broken pipe system turning toilets into wormholes, a spherical room with a metalhead and an electric guitar inside of it, a single regular box that just holds regular objects inside of it, a guy with some puppets and paper mache, and nothing. Realistically speaking, I don't expect there to be an Earth-2 or some shit like that. It would be cool, but it doesn't seem like the case.

Still, I don't have any proof that this isn't the case. It's a "why the fuck should I care yet" question for a rainy day when America-2 invades America. Let's just say it doesn't exist for now and fuck off.

Honestly i dont give a shit. I more concerned how to get good pussy filled with my semen. Who fucking cares if there is multiverse or whatever. I wanna search n destroy females nothing else. Does it really matter if there is multiverse shit? I live here and for me counts only multipussy. You scientist faglord OP go away with your worthless theoretical bullshit.

Mup da do didda po mo

Rick and Morty is cool, so why the fuck not.

In an infinite universe, there are possibilities for most anything.

There might even be a universe out there where OP is not a humongous raging faggot

There has to be only one of those.

>multiverse
It's as much as a "theory" as religion is. No real evidence just a nice dream.

Religion is not the same as the multiverse "theory", take it back.

We don't know shit about anything and our human brains can't comprehend the full picture of anything so yeah why the fuck not

The human mind is always trying to find reasons and meaning in things. What they fail to realize it that it's not hard evidence and proof. There is no known evidence of proof. No known proof exists. Trust me, I know what exists, no known evidence doesn't. When people want to know what exists or not, they come to me. I am the expert in observable proof, so if I say no evidence exists, then it doesn't exist in anyone's reality. The debunked scientists already researched and discovered that no known evidence exists or is known. There is nothing. Life is meaningless, research scientists already proved it.

The Multiverse "theory" isn't some attempt to rationalize random errant quality of something mundane. It's a consequential prediction based upon at least one model of the universe, it is the logical consequence of the laws of physics as they are dictated, especially quantum mechanics. It, itself, is not a theory, sure. Absolutely, it isn't a theory.

But user, it is absolutely not equivocal to Religion. I will not trust you, especially if you're willing to suggest that subject A and subject B are equivocal. Not even if I myself am ultimately Nihilistic.

Isn't Time travel impossible since no one from the future has come back in time yet?

It can be impossible for other reasons, but, we wouldn't know that anyone had come from the future if they
>died upon arriving 3000 ft underground
>never told anyone
>became an amnesiac
>went back to the future
>used technology or means beyond our means of detecting
>is about to reveal their secret

No, because I am not selectively delusional.

multiverse theory is very unlikely.

Causality only exists in the now. People love to believe in multiverse because it gives them the feeling their choice and unmade choice have larger effects. Basically giving them a center of the universe feel. If someone tells you how much they believe in the multiverse theory its likely they are a narcissist or fucked up bad in their life somewhere.

Also if it were true there would be a universe where the big bang or whatever started everything never happened meaning no line could exist. Or even that there would be a universe that wiped out all other universes.

No because in an infinite multiverse there's an infinite chance someone makes a device to destroy the multiverse and an infinite chance they use the device.

Stop smoking weed

I believe this is further proof that OP is a faggot.

Logical infinity is impossible.
This theroy is horse shit

No, of course not. It's a load of poppycock. But me in Universe 749 believes in it quite strongly.

I both believe, and do not believe, in multiverse theory - infinite versions of me, hence infinite opinions, and all of them worthless, just like yours.

But herin lies the problem of infinity.

If there is at least one universe where OP isn't choking on cocks, then there is an infinite number where he isn't.

But he is a rager here? So an infinite number of other universes contains OP taking dicks...

Riddle me this...
Which infinity is larger?

Yes, and you're a faggot in all of them.

Only because surely there's an alternative reality where there's me, but opposite gender, and surely technology will arrive that will allow us to move to other realities.
Then my search can begin.

S-S-S-SICK BUUUUUURRRRRRN. How will OP ever recover?!

I think its likely. The conservation of energy, matter, etc have a lot to do with a multiverse. The conservation is necessary because something was created from nothing. The way to create something is to have a counter balance. So think equal and opposite reaction of a force, there are forces yet they all equal to zero. Assuming this principle that anything can come from nothing so long as its negated it could be possible that an infinite number of universes can exist so long as the 'sum' is equal to zero. Universes wouldn't even have to mirror each other, they would just have to all equal out to nothing. So you could have one big universe be nullified by two smaller ones.

Well, wait. What's the reasoning behind the "uncaused causer" universe having to be a universe where there was no "big bang"? What creates the "split", what is determining whatever the universe was before, if it was anything, suddenly either doing something or continuing to do nothing? Wouldn't you need the possibility of a big bang to necessitate a universe where one did not occur, resulting in a dead end with nothing, and an enormous branch with multiple dead ends? If so, then, again, what is the previous state before the potential for either "big bang", or nothing?

And then, the universe-killing universe. Let's suppose there should be a universe that ends all other universes. Wouldn't then there also be at least one universe that cannot be killed by this universe? Because of all these fantastical possibilities? I want to say that when infinity is applied to probability here, that it could mean that you could have an infinite set of 1, 2, and 3, but have 2 only show up once in the entire infinite sequence. And it'd still be an infinite sequence of finite, possible things.

Simple. Since all OPs could be faggots but not all OPs could be raging faggots, and all OPs who are or are not raging faggots are still faggots, and the statistical occurrence of non-faggot OPs is low, the infinity of wholesale faggotry is larger than all other beta infinities.

Yeah. Ghosts don't exist. What people think of as hauntings are just spots where other worlds bleed over a bit.

even in an infinite spectrum there are finite sequences. if a series of 3s shows up but only once, it still falls in the realm of statistical probability in infinite probability. The problem there is finding out exactly how improbable it is in finding the one spot in that string.

that, of course, would create a fucking improbability drive but whatever.

>Wouldn't then there also be at least one universe that cannot be killed by this universe?

This is what i mean. Best case scenario for multi universe theory is true is that this is the only one left.

Aids, space aids in every direction.

you mean he's not smoking enough weed

Correct. Scients and proofs and evidence. No known adverse reactions. generally regarded as safe, also safe and effective.

You shouldn't have to "believe" in science. You need evidence.

So, of course not. No evidence, Based on a deeply flawed and fanciful interpretation of Schrodinger. Grist for some clown like Michiu Kaku's mill,

>'evidence' is absolute universal truth not like personal perception and subjective interpretation

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

>what did he mean by this

No, evidence is whether something works, how it works and is it repeatable.

You're probably one of those shitstain little Sup Forums racists, so it is not worth worth discussing this particular Gould book with you.

In theis specific quote, I believe that Gould is talking about the very specific value of English biologists to evolutionary theory and the good science they did while still misusing that nascent evolutionary science to construct a virulent colonialist racist fable about race.

Well, I don't know to think that cosmic inflation is Schrodinger's cat. I recall that the introduction of cosmic inflation was intended to solve the problem of the big bang, only causing more issues when an eternally inflating model of the universe was presented- thus spawning more dialogue regarding the multiverse "theory". Including a lot of talk about whether the eternally inflating model can even work with random
>random
quantum fluctuations to produce this fanciful realm of many realities. Effectively, leaving the question open-ended.

I like to visualize dimensions as slices of existence, with your perspective determined by what how many axes you can perceive. For instance, a theoretical two dimensional being would only see a cross section of a 3D universe, being that they only perceive two dimensions, while 3D creatures like ourselves can perceive things on one more axis, but this is still only a slice of a 4D universe (we call that slice the present). When we start to understand the four dimensional universe as a complete whole, we can think of what the 5th axis must be.

I don't like to think of time as a dimension.

if there are infinite universes with infinite possibilities, wouldn't we be dead since there would be realities where someone invented a way to travel between realities and destroy all of them?

Well, that depends on "how the realities are being generated". If we're operating under the mythos of decisions and actions creating all possible other less-traveled roads to travel down, then every time those individuals in those realities where they are meant to try to destroy all other realities will result in many realities where they failed, or just never went.

Perpetually. There will always be more destroyers trying to destroy, and more failing, and more universes just having never been visited, spawning even more destroyers...

Could you elaborate? Is that because of the so-called "arrow of time"?

Personally, I tend to visualize everything that has happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future as existing simultaneously but on a different coordinate of the 4th dimension. Every thing in it's right place, all part of one complete whole.

>because of the so-called "arrow of time"?
No, I just feel that spacetime makes things more neat, so to speak. The arrow of time, I don't know. As much as I think I understand it, the arrow of time is a result of the compounding of all the microscopic phenomenon; causally speaking, all "big" things just seem to go a certain way, while if you try to observe a particle in the same fashion, you could "play time" in any direction, and it would all seem identical, if not exactly similar.

But when I throw in spacetime, I feel it unifies the nature of the fundamental forces with the act of observing causality, without getting brane-y a la string theory going up to all kinds of dimensions and whatnot. Also, I feel that it works a little better when discussion pops up about time diallation and theoretical time travel. I have no clue how to consider it with a 4th dimension being pure time. I don't know how to visualize time as a substance, a thing in nature, beyond the idea of a true singularity of every single thing, ever; I don't know how to navigate zero dimensions, so I take the easier route of spacetime.

Nope. There's no evidence for it. No data, no belief.

>Half of me does, half of me doesn't.

How superpositional of you. A true quantum mechanic.

we get it, you watch rick and morty.

more like "you've read the hitchhiker's guide" you goddamn pleb.

>impliying that 90% of Sup Forums isnt too young to even know what hitchhikers guide to the galaxy is

OF COURSE I DO YOU'RE AN IDIOT NOT TO BELIEVE IN IT YOU FUCKING FUCK FUCK YOU FUCK FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING FUCKITY FUCK SHIT FUCKER!!!!

there's a multiverse in hitchhiker's? i can't remember any of that.

The drive, user.

I admit defeat.

The last couple books make allusions to worlds and sausages. Arthur Dent ends up on a version of Earth called NowWhat. There's also talk of eliminating the bastards in higher dimensions if anyone could figure out how to fire missiles at right angles to reality.

>I have no clue how to consider it with a 4th dimension being pure time. I don't know how to visualize time as a substance, a thing in nature, beyond the idea of a true singularity of every single thing, ever; I don't know how to navigate zero dimensions, so I take the easier route of spacetime.

But space is the same way, no? You can only really define space by what [particles] resides therein. So if I asked "how much space is in a meter?" is it not the same as asking "how much time is in a second?" These units of measure are useful for describing the difference between two points of reference but say nothing about the medium of space or time in and of themselves.

Einstein said that time exists so that everything doesn't happen all at once. Can we not think of space as existing so that everything doesn't happen at one singular point? They are really not so different when you consider it this way.

Btw thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm not especially well read about this but I do enjoy engaging in thought experiments.

hell i just now saw my delicious tripdubs

>"how much space is in a meter"
>"how much time is in a second"
Yeah, they are the same thing when I use spacetime. In that in order to travel that distance, you would need to undergo successive changes between states in a seemingly specific fashion- and to move that quickly, you would need to cover many coordinates. But in the same stroke, when I use the word "space", I also use the word "time". They are together, one thing. One thing that enables the sentence "there are two points of reference" to be true and possible, in that without space-time, you could never define energy. Energy would never happen- a discrepancy between one state and another to create the sense of flow between quantum wouldn't exist, couldn't really be said to exist.

When meters and seconds come in, I can agree that they don't really say anything about the nature of space or time, but that's because they are only units of measurement.

>Einstien said
Well, I don't think Einstein was the one who coined the phrase. I'm not even sure he said it.
Argosy All-story Weekly, Volume 129, Issue 3
Page 371

And I'm a big fan of General and Special relativity. I can consider space existing such that everything doesn't happen at one singular point, but then I think about mass and gravity. Electrons have mass. Therefore, they have gravity. If anything has mass, it has some gravitational field.

And back to gravity. When you add more mass... you find more complexity. And when you move away from mass, you get less complexity. Likewise, with gravity. When you get on the scale of an electron, things are fairly simple and more "elementary". But gravity is also weaker there. Still, there, you can more easily see where complexity, where more electrons and more particles, would collect. Where it would go. And there are a lot of parts to an atom. There are all kinds of places an electron could be. So, when I think time, I think that in order to express "more coordinates" of time, you need more space. You need more, distance. More potential to change states, whatever the most desired state should be. You need those reactions, you need the fundamental forces, and one of them seems to be inextricably linked to the way mass moves through space (according to a specific framework). And, if where you have mass you have gravitational fields, and where you have mass or gravity you have complexity, and where you have space, you have time...

Well? What would be a more complete expression of all possible things than a singularity expanding into a boundless void, where all things can eventually occupy every possible space? A singularity, in other words, the universe before the big bang, everything in one point, having a dimension without any axes. Arrows pointing essentially anywhere.

This.
Also the multiverse theory people think they understand has nothing to do with what it actually is, it's not about literal multiple universes it's a little more abstract then that and gets squishy

The 4th dimension is time because talking about something, like say the moons position, doesn't make much sense without when. We use it everyday like let's meet for lunch at a restaurant (at coordinates X,Y,Z) but without a when (time) we'd never see each other. It's just the next logical item of info to describe with position in space

How could I? Anything outside of our universe would be supernatural and all claims of the supernatural are by their very definition untestable.