Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Would that mean that there are incalculable versions of yourselves in other universes?

Could there be other WDs posting the same question in the other KMCs?

Are we not the result of Evolution?

Isn't a Omniverse consider a multiple universes existing at once?

Well?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Would that means that there are incalculable versions of yourselves in other universes?

Could there be other WDs posting the same question in the other KMCs?

They might.

I wonder if the Bardock42s and WDs in the other universes are thinking about us two in their respective universes. hm

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I wonder if the Bardock42s and WDs in the other universes are thinking about us two in their respective universes. hm They might.

I guess chances are good that there is an infinite amount of stuff....though infinite implies time...which might not be necessary.

Abstract stuff is abstract.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Would that mean that there are incalculable versions of yourselves in other universes?

Could there be other WDs posting the same question in the other KMCs?

Are we not the result of Evolution?

Isn't a Omniverse consider a multiple universes existing at once?

Well?

Interestingly if you consider to possible number of variations that could exist there are pobably an infinite number of absolutely identical versions of us doing the exact same things.

Yes and no.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes and no.

There were more than 2 questions.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There were more than 2 questions.

There are a lot of yes and no in my answer. I just didn't want to type them all.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Would that mean that there are incalculable versions of yourselves in other universes?

Could there be other WDs posting the same question in the other KMCs?

Are we not the result of Evolution?

Isn't a Omniverse consider a multiple universes existing at once?

Well? You been reading a book haven't you??

I read a book like that too........It relates to holographic universes. Kind of a Quantum thingie...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Would that mean that there are incalculable versions of yourselves in other universes?

Could there be other WDs posting the same question in the other KMCs?

Are we not the result of Evolution?

Isn't a Omniverse consider a multiple universes existing at once?

Well?

I would be interested in meeting "myself." I wonder just how different "I" would be, or maybe the same.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Would that mean that there are incalculable versions of yourselves in other universes?

Could there be other WDs posting the same question in the other KMCs?

Are we not the result of Evolution?

Isn't a Omniverse consider a multiple universes existing at once?

Well? In the other KMCs, the WDs used the word "ourselves" instead of "yourselves" thus separating into another universe at the point that the choice of words was made. jk

I believe that such is possible, I also believe there is absolutely no means by which these universes could become aware of one another as if they were to come into contact, at the point of contact they would merge and the past would be whole and indiscernible by the merged self.

Or is it all just reflections of Amber?

Sorry couldn't help throwing a Zelazny reference into this discussion

All choices and alternatives are chosen. Each choice is played out in an entirely separate universe, resulting in an infinite number of alternate universes. No choice is not made, they all have resulted in something somewhere, and influenced the path that that universe took.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Would that mean that there are incalculable versions of yourselves in other universes?
Could there be other WDs posting the same question in the other KMCs?
Are we not the result of Evolution?
Isn't a Omniverse consider a multiple universes existing at once?
Well?

Some cosmologists who propose multiple universes, see this as the logical response to Intelligent Design. In other words, whereas ID points out how finely tuned all the countless parts of our universe are in order to support life -- and that the odds of this happening by chance are so infinitesimal that this must be the result of a creator -- these cosmologists say it's simply a numbers game: if you have an infinite number of universes, sooner or later you will get one that's just like ours. Indeed, with true infinity, you can have an infinite subset of life-supporting universes -- each with a slight variation, many with a WrathfulDwarf going "H'mmm...I wonder if there are other universes..."

And while there is no empirical evidence for multiple universes -- just like there is no empirical evidence for "God" -- empirical evidence for these other universes is theoretical attainable, whereas for "God" (a nonempirical entity, if "He" exists) it is not.

Originally posted by Mindship
Some cosmologists who propose multiple universes, see this as the logical response to Intelligent Design. In other words, whereas ID points out how finely tuned all the countless parts of our universe are in order to support life -- and that the odds of this happening by chance are so infinitesimal that this must be the result of a creator -- these cosmologists say it's simply a numbers game: if you have an infinite number of universes, sooner or later you will get one that's just like ours. Indeed, with true infinity, you can have an infinite subset of life-supporting universes -- each with a slight variation, many with a WrathfulDwarf going "H'mmm...I wonder if there are other universes..."



I like this part and this is were I like to stick to. I know eventually ID will pop out and I'm trying to steer clear of that area. I do find ID interesting....but I'm more into the Probability area.

No scenario is truly infinite; there are limits somewhere either on scale or what can be achieved, else we would have met them already.

Infinity when applied to such things is a self-contradictory concept anyway. Douglas Adams did well to take the piss.

If there are muti-universes I bet Oprah is the leader of the world in one, and I'm leading the revolution agaisnt her giant head shuriken



The question that intrigues me the most is "Are we no the result of Evolution?"

If they're other version of ourselves who's to say they evolved any more or less. Maybe those bastards are the ones who are riding around in jetpacks that our society was suppose to have done years ago, or maybe they're extremely dumb, and haven't even invented television yet.(which could be a paradox, because w/o TV there minds might actually be sharper.)

Originally posted by Mindship
And while there is no empirical evidence for multiple universes -- just like there is no empirical evidence for "God" -- empirical evidence for these other universes is theoretical attainable, whereas for "God" (a nonempirical entity, if "He" exists) it is not.


Good point.

Its funny how the scientific society accept some non-empirical ideas like virtual particles, string theory and parallel universes, but deny other ideas when everything that is not empirical should not be considered science by their own definition of science.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Its funny how the scientific society accept some non-empirical ideas like virtual particles, string theory and parallel universes, but deny other ideas when everything that is not empirical should not be considered science by their own definition of science.

There's a fine line between science and scientism.

1) Um, I think there is a major point being missed and that is that we are assuming this 'omniverse' has DIFFERENT people that are like us when in reality a better explanation of an omniverse would be ONE timeline of events that repeat for infinity. Like, at this moment I am typing this word and in an alternate universe the same thing is happening just 1 second later than this timeline, and so on for all of them.

2) Time travel, more appropriately "time jumping" is impossible.

3) The entire idea is crazy and for the most part the result of nerdy science-fiction loving scientists who were watching star trek instead of working.

I'm guilty on #3. Except I'm more philosopher than scientist.

However, what's with the Time Travel comment? We're not discussing a time travel idea between universes. We are just speculating the idea of others versions of ourselves in other universes.

*goes back to watching Star Trek*

No someone made a comment about time travel somewhere in here and going to meet another self or something.

I dont beleive it. Evolution is one thing, but sooner or later we're gunna hear there is no such thing as reality...it is all the matrix. Moohahaha!

In physics this parallel universes thing arise when you try to apply to the observer the quantum nature of supeposition of states that happen with quantum particles.


Like when a electron assume many different states at the same time and the observer can do the same. Each state of the observer would be observing one state of the electron individually. Each possible oberver oberving a electron represents a different universe. So, thats why physicists say there are different universes.


In this theory each version of yourself is completely equivalent to each other and no one is better or worse, in the standart interpretation of QM they say the other versions cease to exist and only one version remains.


I am usually inclined to think that other versions cease to exist in someway. I think that the fact that we are conscious of our current reality is enough to say that the other realities are not exactly like ours. I think that it is consciousness what makes this distinction.


Resuming.... the parallel universes theory argues that all realities must be completely equivalent meaning no one is better or worse. But I believe there is some distinction.

The whole thing is somewhat disturbing.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
In physics this parallel universes thing arise when you try to apply to the observer the quantum nature of supeposition of states that happen with quantum particles.

Like when a electron assume many different states at the same time and the observer can do the same. Each state of the observer would be observing one state of the electron individually. Each possible oberver oberving a electron represents a different universe. So, thats why physicists say there are different universes. Everett's many-worlds hypothesis remains my favorite quantum explanation because of its conceptual simplicity and mind-numbing grandeur.


.. the parallel universes theory argues that all realities must be completely equivalent meaning no one is better or worse. But I believe there is some distinction. Your parallel copies are thinking the same thing.


As to why we don't perceive the other universes (if they exist): can you imagine the complexity of a brain required to process so much information? The biophysical laws of our universe may not be able to support such a thing (unless...h'mm, is there a bio-precedent for a quantum computer?). Or perhaps from an evolutionary standpoint, organisms had a much better chance to pass on their genes if they only had one universe to deal with (great caesar's ghost, isn't one enough?)

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
3) The entire idea is crazy and for the most part the result of nerdy science-fiction loving scientists who were watching star trek instead of working. Although sci-fi loving scientists are what propels technology at the rate it advances. Possibility is the father of invention while necessity is its mother.

Originally posted by Regret
Possibility is the father of invention while necessity is its mother. Nice. You invent that?

Originally posted by Mindship
Nice. You invent that? I think so

Stupid universes. Who invented them.