Multiverse Theory

Stormy · May 02, 2012 7:42 PM

Serious or not, obvious troll is obvious, so I hope no one goes into a rage about this and tries to argue.

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · May 02, 2012 7:46 PM

yeah. that's what i was essentially hoping for. so many people just flip when you point out the fallacies of science, as though no wrong can come from it, and i could see something like that coming out really soon..

Hwd45 · May 02, 2012 8:13 PM

36IStillLikeSpyro36 wrote:

yeah. that's what i was essentially hoping for. so many people just flip when you point out the fallacies of science, as though no wrong can come from it, and i could see something like that coming out really soon..

Don't ever insult science around me or else I will literally kill someone.

Ha, lol, not really. But yeah don't insult science when I'm around. I'm watching you.

Latias fan · May 02, 2012 8:16 PM

Science you say?

Hwd45 · May 02, 2012 8:19 PM

You know, I'm not even going to ask...

Neotyguy40 · May 02, 2012 9:47 PM

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."

It can't simply 'be wrong'. Our knowledge may be wrong, but science itself isn't. That's the cool thing about the universe is that it doesn't care what people believe.

However, an extreme majority of scientists understand and use the model of the Big Bang to design their experiments. It is safe to say, at the moment, that the Big Bang theory is the only legitimate theory we have.

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · May 03, 2012 3:52 AM

science isn't a way of thinking to begin with. science is a collection of generally-accepted facts, and a method of determining them which works (as far as the physical goes), trying to understand the universe. the resulting thinking depends on the person. science isn't that in itself.

and yes, it can be wrong. the definition of science
knowledge of the physical, and the concept of science, are the same thing. if people "know" something based on the scientific method, that ends up being wrong, science was wrong.

Neotyguy40 · May 03, 2012 10:02 PM

People keep telling me to stop playing the word game, but then others keep pulling this right after.

36IStillLikeSpyro36 wrote:

science isn't a way of thinking to begin with. science is a collection of generally-accepted facts, and a method of determining them which works (as far as the physical goes), trying to understand the universe. the resulting thinking depends on the person. science isn't that in itself.
and yes, it can be wrong. the definition of science
knowledge of the physical, and the concept of science, are the same thing. if people "know" something based on the scientific method, that ends up being wrong, science was wrong.

You are interpreting it wrong though, you need to take the whole definition, and not the first 3 words. The rest refers to the way that knowledge or study is, not referring at all to what is generally accepted. That is why we can't use the term in ways like:

"Science says---"

You need to say:

"Scientific studies suggest---"

Though is you want another web source to back it up, Wikipedia.

And just to point out, the quote from my post you responded to wasn't mine, it was Carl Sagan's.

riverhippo · May 04, 2012 11:22 AM

What's hard to wrap my mind around is that if another universe would exist, it might not be fully identical to the natures of this universe. I don't think it's right to just assume that they would all be the same. Some universes might not have the same physical laws or carry the same periodic table of elements. Maybe it doesn't even have periodic table of elements. Maybe the structure in matter isn't even made up of atoms, like it is in ours. Maybe some universes are in existence in some other dimension we can not humanly understand.

And if we can take that possibility, then it doesn't really matter then if another universe is possible because there would be no way of having knowledge of such a universe unless founded completely by accident in terms of a universe in which another one may not even apply.

I think it's definitely possible, however, for multiple universes to exist. I think the way universes exist can be based on probability. And no matter what it takes, or 'how long' it takes for a universe to form, what might be improbable for a short time, might be inevitable in an eon.

JazzJackrabbit · May 04, 2012 9:04 PM

I propose a new law of internet debate:

When unexplained phenomena are being discussed in a casual environment, it is acceptable to use the word "theory" in place of "hypothesis" "myth" or or any word that implies a statement is intended as a possible explanation. The probability of someone bringing up technicalities is proportional to the number of parties involved.

(I didn't see it here, but it's a good fallacy resource: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep … ments.html)

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · May 05, 2012 3:39 AM

.

Last edited by 36IStillLikeSpyro36 (Feb 07, 2016 5:50 AM)

riverhippo · May 05, 2012 8:24 PM

one of my all time favorite poems

http://people.morehead-st.edu/fs/k.mincey/Swenson.htm

                    The Universe
                  by May Swenson
                     (1919-1989)

                        What
                            is it about,
            the universe,
            the universe about us stretching out?
    We, within our brains,
             within it,
                            think
we must unspin
the laws that spin it.
                            We think why
                because we think
because.
                Because we think,
                              we think
                              the universe about us.

                But does it think,
                            the universe?
                                Then what about?
                                                About us?
                                           If not,
must there be cause
                            in the universe?
Must it have laws?
                                        And what
                                    if the universe
                                                    is not about us?
                                        Then what?
                                                    What
                                                           is it about?
                                        And what
                                                                about us?

Pasted from <http://people.morehead-st.edu/fs/k.mincey/Swenson.htm>

Clock-la · May 07, 2012 9:53 AM

Why is it science is determined to make us seem so insugnificant

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · May 07, 2012 8:32 PM

scientifically speaking, we are. this is just a little spec in a giant void, and nothing we do means anything because it all just ends eventually. it's what lies beyond science that gives us significance, because then we have the soul, [redacted] and it also adds meaning and genuine identity to people, since otherwise, meaning, without the soul, people are just an extension of physical matter. nothing would "live" on the physical plane, so it wouldn't matter. with consideration to the soul, our actions mean everything.

(post edited 07 Feb 2016)

Last edited by 36IStillLikeSpyro36 (Feb 07, 2016 5:54 AM)

Neotyguy40 · May 07, 2012 8:41 PM

Clock-la wrote:

Why is it science is determined to make us seem so insugnificant

That's because we are! Science, philosophy, and religion all tend to give us the sense that we are small. Our brains are wired up very powerfully, and it gives us the ability to think in ways that no other animal can, conceptualizing ideas of other worlds, planes, universes, after-lives, and metaphysics.

Aceedwin · May 07, 2012 10:31 PM

36IStillLikeSpyro36 wrote:

scientifically speaking, we are. this is just a little spec in a giant void, and nothing we do means anything because it all just ends eventually. it's what lies beyond science that gives us significance, because then we have the soul, which adds a layer of depth to reality, transcending the quasi-metaphorical flatness of the physical plane, and it also adds meaning and genuine identity to people, since otherwise, meaning, without the soul, people are just an extension of physical matter. nothing would "live" on the physical plane, so it wouldn't matter. with consideration to the soul, our actions mean everything.

Lol, spirituality. It's like a comedic representation of everything hilarious about prefixes like "quasi-" and their ilk.

Video was tl;dw, but I'll just casually assume that the thing was talking about the idea that we make decisions, or stuff happens, and that causes two universes to spring into motion and seperate.

I can't really roll with that idea on a philosophical or practical basis. My choice on whether or not to make porridge tomorrow morning produces an entirely new universe? Seems legit.

But even is there was some quasi-scientific (oh god, so good) reason for birthing new universes all over the place, I'm still a hard, incompatibalist determinist. If there only one way a given universe can go on, I can't really imagine there being new universes spawned from alternate timelines. Because, you know, there aren't any.

I'd put money on the fact that I've completely gone the wrong way on this one, and I've just totally owned a strawman, but whatever. 45 minutes? About some boring quasi-universe-quasi-physical-quasi-parallel-quasi-quasi theory? Can't be having with that.

Latias fan · May 07, 2012 11:48 PM

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/vCapYAJO2n0&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Stormy · May 07, 2012 11:56 PM

Why bother even posting, then? Seriously, I'm getting sick of telling you, you really need to stop with the pointless posts.

KaosGirl · May 08, 2012 4:08 PM

If by multiverse you mean other planes of existence then yes it does exist. One can go to other universes AND multiples through the process of astral projection. Been doing this for a long time now! XD

I didn't get to watch the video.

Clock-la · May 08, 2012 4:09 PM

Stormy wrote:

Why bother even posting, then? Seriously, I'm getting sick of telling you, you really need to stop with the pointless posts.

Ban hammer time and hi Shenzi welcome home.

Hwd45 · May 08, 2012 4:16 PM

I'm still a 'no' with the multiverse business. I like strange Science, and I really want to go into Particle or Quantum physics, but Multiverse? Not sure. I suppose it is possible, considering that one of the original explanations why the Neutrinos were travelling faster than c was that they go into another dimension upon becoming superluminal; a dimension which allows them to be superluminal. It's very difficult to get your head round, really, that the infinite space we live in if in a different place to an infinite amount of other universes... It just sounds like Science Fiction or perhaps how infinite worlds are generated in games.

#26 May 02, 2012 7:42 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#27 May 02, 2012 7:46 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#28 May 02, 2012 8:13 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#29 May 02, 2012 8:16 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#30 May 02, 2012 8:19 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#31 May 02, 2012 9:47 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#32 May 03, 2012 3:52 AM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#33 May 03, 2012 10:02 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#34 May 04, 2012 11:22 AM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#35 May 04, 2012 9:04 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#36 May 05, 2012 3:39 AM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#37 May 05, 2012 8:24 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#38 May 07, 2012 9:53 AM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#39 May 07, 2012 8:32 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#40 May 07, 2012 8:41 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#41 May 07, 2012 10:31 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#42 May 07, 2012 11:48 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#43 May 07, 2012 11:56 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#44 May 08, 2012 4:08 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#45 May 08, 2012 4:09 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#46 May 08, 2012 4:16 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

Board footer