Re: So, if we are a part of a Omniverse and we follow Evolutionary system.
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Well, that parallel universe thing is the result of an interpretation of quantum mechanics. We canīt deny it makes some sense since it solve problems and explain things in science, but I think there is more to it and its not know everything yet.
So perhaps these parallel universes are not exactly what we think they are, perhaps they are just a way to explain something in QM, or perhaps there are other ways to interpretate them.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
Re: So, if we are a part of a Omniverse and we follow Evolutionary system.
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.
Re: So, if we are a part of a Omniverse and we follow Evolutionary system.
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.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Re: Re: So, if we are a part of a Omniverse and we follow Evolutionary system.
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.
__________________
Last edited by WanderingDroid on Jan 30th, 2007 at 04:34 PM
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
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.)
Re: Re: So, if we are a part of a Omniverse and we follow Evolutionary system.
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.
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.
__________________ Blog discussing politics, society, and current events! TOMORROW TODAY: A CHANGING WORLD
***> http://ttacw.blogspot.com/ <***
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
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.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 30th, 2007 12:39 AM
jk
