NationStates Jolt Archive

Just curious. I, for one, believe quantum theory has essentially proved they exist, and I believe that anything that can happen, does happen, in different realities. And when I say anything, I do mean anything; all of our fiction, every book, movie, TV show, hell, even our own NationStates Nations, all exist in alternate universes.
I can imagine the headlines of one I'd love to be in..."Kerry Wins the Election by a Landslide! Bush collapses into a fetal position out of shock..."
Anyway, besides that, what do you think about them? And what kind would you like to see/visit/come up with?

I'd love to send all neo-con Republican and fundamentalist Christians, as well as the religious-right there...

...and no one comments. What? Too busy restating the same arguments time and again in some political thread?

Just curious. I, for one, believe quantum theory has essentially proved they exist,

You can believe whatever you want about whether they exist or not; but please, don't claim that their existence has been "proven." It hasn't, not in any sense of the word. There isn't any evidence for the existence of alternate universes.

It's a very convenient explanation for how nature decides which of two equally probable alternativec to go with; quantum theory dictates that there are no "hidden variables," so the claim is that the only way for nature to resolve the probability conundrum is to do both things - multiple universes.

Unfortunately, there's no a priori reason to claim that nature has to be deterministic and can't contain true randomness.

As far as I know, multiple-universes is a convenient hypothesis, but has given no testable predictions and is not "proven" in any sense of the word.

and I believe that anything that can happen, does happen, in different realities. And when I say anything, I do mean anything; all of our fiction, every book, movie, TV show, hell, even our own NationStates Nations, all exist in alternate universes.
I can imagine the headlines of one I'd love to be in..."Kerry Wins the Election by a Landslide! Bush collapses into a fetal position out of shock..."
Anyway, besides that, what do you think about them? And what kind would you like to see/visit/come up with?

What I think of them - sure, would be nice, but I see no more reason for believing in them than for believing in God or invisible pink unicorns.

As with God, it would be very nice if they existed; but, as of this moment, it's no more than a belief.

Care to present any evidence? I'd love to hear it.

So you mean that there's one with the Culture in it?

Give me that sample! I'm off.

Either that, or one where my nation exists, because it rules.
Isn't a parallel universe given credit for the big bang in some scientific circuits, or even the majority? I have no idea myself, they could have laughed that idea all the way to the... eh. Funfair. But yeah, parallel universes have to exist.

You can believe whatever you want about whether they exist or not; but please, don't claim that their existence has been "proven." It hasn't, not in any sense of the word. There isn't any evidence for the existence of alternate universes.

It's a very convenient explanation for how nature decides which of two equally probable alternativec to go with; quantum theory dictates that there are no "hidden variables," so the claim is that the only way for nature to resolve the probability conundrum is to do both things - multiple universes.

Unfortunately, there's no a priori reason to claim that nature has to be deterministic and can't contain true randomness.

As far as I know, multiple-universes is a convenient hypothesis, but has given no testable predictions and is not "proven" in any sense of the word.



What I think of them - sure, would be nice, but I see no more reason for believing in them than for believing in God or invisible pink unicorns.

As with God, it would be very nice if they existed; but, as of this moment, it's no more than a belief.

Care to present any evidence? I'd love to hear it.
I don't have any beyond quantum theory. However, this is one case where I believe in them, because they tie into my time travel theory: the universe is smart enough to avoid the grandfather paradox by creating an alternate universe once you've gone back and killed your grandfather. And so on and so forth; they exist, as far as I'm concerned.

Alternate Universes - I do believe they can scientifically exist.

But for enjoyment reasons, I like Alternatue Universe sci-fies, including all the Alt. Universe Gundam series (tho I wouldnt mind seeing some more UC Gundam)

I don't have any beyond quantum theory. However, this is one case where I believe in them, because they tie into my time travel theory: the universe is smart enough to avoid the grandfather paradox by creating an alternate universe once you've gone back and killed your grandfather. And so on and so forth; they exist, as far as I'm concerned.

Quantum theory does not, to my knowledge, state "There are alternate universes."

Scientists have postulated that alternate universes *might* be the way in which the 4th dimension works. However, without evidence beyond "this is the best way we can think of," nothing is "proven."

For my part, I don't know if alternate universes exist, and I don't really care. My guess is probably not. It isn't useful in any way to us if they do. After all, if we could go universe hopping, that would just condense everything down into one universe.

There do seem to be good reasons to believe that our universe has something in the order of nine or ten dimensions (SST) of which we are aware of the basic three.

There are then other dimensions available for parallel existances to occupy within our own universe, without the need for alternate universes.

One problem I have with the quantum theory alternate universes is the geometrical expansion of the number of universes over time (If there is such a thing as time that is) I know it is probably just my limited human imagination but I prefer explanations that do not result in incomprehensible numbers of parallel worlds, each differing by the way in which one wave function collapsed for one of an equally unimaginable number of events. What keeps me sane with this is the fact that if these multiple universes exist, they cannot affect me, as I am necessarily in my own universe which can have no information derived from the others.

I'd love to send all neo-con Republican and fundamentalist Christians, as well as the religious-right there...
Then the moderate left-wingers become the right-wingers.

I like alternative universes. I heard a theory once that when you sneeze, the reason your heart stops is because your consciousness is being shifted over one universe very much like the one you where in before except for minor differences.

This is also the reason why you sneeze for no apparent reason, all your alternative selves are sneezing along with you. Sort of like a wave in a stadium it builds momentum.

I don't have any beyond quantum theory. However, this is one case where I believe in them, because they tie into my time travel theory: the universe is smart enough to avoid the grandfather paradox by creating an alternate universe once you've gone back and killed your grandfather. And so on and so forth; they exist, as far as I'm concerned.How does that resolve the grandfather paradox?

I like alternative universes. I heard a theory once that when you sneeze, the reason your heart stops is because your consciousness is being shifted over one universe very much like the one you where in before except for minor differences.

This is also the reason why you sneeze for no apparent reason, all your alternative selves are sneezing along with you. Sort of like a wave in a stadium it builds momentum.

Does this expliain why I never sneeze just once, but always twice? Is it that I jumped or was I pushed?

Hear that? It's the sound of SCIENCE!

I subscribe to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Which is to say, I think the universe is a superposition of many states that do not interact with each other. When an event occurs, states form that represent each of its possibilities. When you observe the results, you become entangled with the observed result's state.

I don't have any beyond quantum theory. However, this is one case where I believe in them, because they tie into my time travel theory: the universe is smart enough to avoid the grandfather paradox by creating an alternate universe once you've gone back and killed your grandfather. And so on and so forth; they exist, as far as I'm concerned.

I see no reason to believe in alternate universes, but I'm pretty sure Time Travel, at least, into the past, is impossible.

The idea of the universe being in any way 'smart' seems pretty silly also. Unless God does it, but he doesn't fit into my world view either.

Hear that? It's the sound of SCIENCE!

I subscribe to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Which is to say, I think the universe is a superposition of many states that do not interact with each other. When an event occurs, states form that represent each of its possibilities. When you observe the results, you become entangled with the observed result's state.

Those are wonderful beliefs, but unless you can come up with a test which might falsify it, it has little to do with science and is actually more in the realm of philosophy.

Does this expliain why I never sneeze just once, but always twice?
Same here! I always sneeze twice!

Does this expliain why I never sneeze just once, but always twice? Is it that I jumped or was I pushed?

Maybe it's Spring some where, or perhaps people are running like hell from the Universes where GW is President of the US. Excuse I'm going to go and buy some snuff. :D

Just curious. I, for one, believe quantum theory has essentially proved they exist, and I believe that anything that can happen, does happen, in different realities. And when I say anything, I do mean anything; all of our fiction, every book, movie, TV show, hell, even our own NationStates Nations, all exist in alternate universes.
I can imagine the headlines of one I'd love to be in..."Kerry Wins the Election by a Landslide! Bush collapses into a fetal position out of shock..."
Anyway, besides that, what do you think about them? And what kind would you like to see/visit/come up with?
I say it's definately an interesting theory...
It doesn't seem to be able to be proved or disproved at the moment, but it's certainly intriguing.
Hmm, it's hard to pick one when literally everything is happening somewhere...

Those are wonderful beliefs, but unless you can come up with a test which might falsify it, it has little to do with science and is actually more in the realm of philosophy.

That's pretty difficult because the field of quantum mechanics consists mostly of Gedankenexperiment like the infamous Schrödinger's cat. But the electron double-slit experiment seems to be in accordance with many-worlds interpretation (and several others, like the Copenhagen interpretation).

I don't think we should discuss whether or not an alternative universe excist, simply because the disscussion is completly irrelevant. What we can do, and maybe even should, is to play with the though, as a mind experiment. The formalism in quantum mechanics states that there might excist alternative universes, it feels justified to make that "experiment". But to accually state it would be even more nonesence than having me stating that my imaginary friend acctually excists.

How does that resolve the grandfather paradox?
Because when you return to your own time, you're not in your own universe; you're in the newly created universe. The other universe proceeds by itself without ever being interrupted. You don't die; you're just out of place in a universe that's never heard of you.

That's pretty difficult because the field of quantum mechanics consists mostly of Gedankenexperiment like the infamous Schrödinger's cat. But the electron double-slit experiment seems to be in accordance with many-worlds interpretation (and several others, like the Copenhagen interpretation).

However, if it cannot be falsified, you cannot assert a positive statement. It is all well and fine to say "This evidence suggests that there may be alternate universes." However, until we find one, that is all you can say. You certainly can't say "Science has proven that there are alternate universes" or that anything depends on their existence.

However, if it cannot be falsified, you cannot assert a positive statement. It is all well and fine to say "This evidence suggests that there may be alternate universes." However, until we find one, that is all you can say. You certainly can't say "Science has proven that there are alternate universes" or that anything depends on their existence.
You're right, we can't. But you also can't prove a negative. So until we have proof, we're at an impasse.
Beyond that, what universe would you like to visit and such? (Since that was actually the original intent of this thread, though the science was fun to discuss too.)

Because when you return to your own time, you're not in your own universe; you're in the newly created universe. The other universe proceeds by itself without ever being interrupted. You don't die; you're just out of place in a universe that's never heard of you.I'm not trying to be awkward but I still don't see how that helps.

Let's assume that we're in universe X. Something happens ("event A") and X is split into two new universes, X1 and X2. By definition, X1 and X2 are identical up to the point at which event A occurs - so if you were born into the X universe you must necessarily have been born into X1 and X2.

By claiming that you never existed in X2, all you're doing is transferring the paradox from X to X2.

I'm not trying to be awkward but I still don't see how that helps.

Let's assume that we're in universe X. Something happens ("event A") and X is split into two new universes, X1 and X2. By definition, X1 and X2 are identical up to the point at which event A occurs - so if you were born into the X universe you must necessarily have been born into X1 and X2.

By claiming that you never existed in X2, all you're doing is transferring the paradox from X to X2.
No, I'm not. You've made an error.
First, let's say you're in X1. You go back in time. Just by doing that, you disturb air molecules and create X2, which is exactly the same as X1 from your past, which is beside the point. Since you're now in your own past, and you kill your grandfather before you're born, you create a new universe that forms before you're ever born. X1 goes on and you're born in it, while in X2(or X3 if you wish) continues without your father or you ever being born. You return to your own present while still in X2/3, thereby skirting the paradox.

You're right, we can't. But you also can't prove a negative. So until we have proof, we're at an impasse.

Much like the God debate. =)

Beyond that, what universe would you like to visit and such? (Since that was actually the original intent of this thread, though the science was fun to discuss too.)

Hmmmm. I would like a universe where strawberries, avacado, and salmon were the absolute in health foods with no adverse affects such as making you fat.

Persionally I think there is no existence. I have no proof of this but none of you have PROOF of your arguement because there is no proof to be found. Once you prove that alternate universes exist I will believe you. If you even manage to prove that we do exist you will become my god.

No, I'm not. You've made an error.
First, let's say you're in X1. You go back in time. Just by doing that, you disturb air molecules and create X2, which is exactly the same as X1 from your past, which is beside the point. Since you're now in your own past, and you kill your grandfather before you're born, you create a new universe that forms before you're ever born. X1 goes on and you're born in it, while in X2(or X3 if you wish) continues without your father or you ever being born. You return to your own present while still in X2/3, thereby skirting the paradox.Ah, I see what you mean - that's a pretty groovy idea. If I'm arrested by Starfleet for violating the integrity of the time-line I'm going to hold you responsible ;>

Ah, I see what you mean - that's a pretty groovy idea. If I'm arrested by Starfleet for violating the integrity of the time-line I'm going to hold you responsible ;>
Don't worry; I'm close friends with Temporal Investigations; they let slide anything I ask them to.

Don't worry; I'm close friends with Temporal Investigations; they let slide anything I ask them to.Can you get them to deposit a couple of pounds into a bank account in my name 300 years ago? ;)

If I understand the theory correctly (emphasis on the "if"), the universe basically diverges every time that something happens (or doesn't happen) on the subatomic level. Therefore, there's presumably a universe in which all the molecules in my monitor just happen to jump up a foot into the air.

I want to live in the universe where any such magical-seeming thing occurs exactly when I wish it to, albeit entirely coincidentally. I've always wanted to be a wizard!

The Red Sox won the World Series. No other alternate universes needed.

I like it when people talk about science and "proof". Nothing ever has been proven. There is no proof that gravity exist. There is no proof that nuclear explosions kill people. There is no proof that the coputers we are using are powered by electricity. They may very well be powered by magical gumdrops from the planet mixbooobob. Any scienties that doesn't acknowledge these facts is either, arrogant, ignorant, stupid, or untrustworthy.

That being said, there is ample evidence to support the idea of gravity, every nuclear explosion in the past has been destructive, and it appears that electronics use electricity. Generally, it is safe to assume that what has happened will, all variables being equal, happen again the exact same way. Science is really about understanding how altered variables alter outcomes and trying to put togather a picture of a particilar phenomon's modus operendi. Scientists also try to create thories that explain the bigger picture, how things should work given the evidence. However, the evidence is never complete. This is why scientific theories are always changing and evolving.

As to alternate universes, it is very much possible. I am not sure, however, if they arise from different outcomes of probable events. I am currently of the theory that probability is an illusion created by a lack of knowledge. Something either will happen or it won't happen at any given moment. When you roll dice, the roll isn't random. It is insted determined by many varriables that are usualy unknown. Weighted dice work because they give more weight to a varriable that favors a particular outcome. If we were able to map and measure every given variable we could precisly determine everything that will happen from now till the end of time, Schrodinger's paradox not withstanding. What would have happened if we did not observe is irrevilant to the final outcome, since we did observe. This idea is logically incompatable with the idea of alternate universes arising from probability flucations, since it means that suce flucations do not exist. However, it still allows alternate usiverses to arise, either indepenant of other universes or due to unique events in other universes

As to alternate universes, it is very much possible. I am not sure, however, if they arise from different outcomes of probable events. I am currently of the theory that probability is an illusion created by a lack of knowledge. Something either will happen or it won't happen at any given moment. When you roll dice, the roll isn't random. It is insted determined by many varriables that are usualy unknown. Weighted dice work because they give more weight to a varriable that favors a particular outcome. If we were able to map and measure every given variable we could precisly determine everything that will happen from now till the end of time, Schrodinger's paradox not withstanding. What would have happened if we did not observe is irrevilant to the final outcome, since we did observe. This idea is logically incompatable with the idea of alternate universes arising from probability flucations, since it means that suce flucations do not exist. However, it still allows alternate usiverses to arise, either indepenant of other universes or due to unique events in other universes

There's actually a theory called scientific determinism which is pretty much what you just said. But not many accept it, particularly in its strongest forms.

I got my snuff and a page open to the election results.

snort Achoo! Oh damn!

snort Achoo! Oh damn!

snort Achoo! Oh damn!

Oh wait in this Universe Bush is the winner, I have to find the crazy Bizzaro universe where I'm a Bush supporter. I hope I'm rich and married to Kate Winslet.

snort Achoo! Oh damn!

snort Achoo! Oh damn!

snort Achoo! All Right! Hey Katie honey come here!

Katie?.....

Did it ever occur to you that ours may be the alternate universe?

"What is your opinion on Alternate Universes?"

They're kinda like God ... some people think they might be there, but there's no real way to prove it. :)

What I would like to see, But definitely not want to live in..

What would happen if D-Day failed.. Hitler didn't attack the Russians, rather they went south and got the oil field.

A world with 4 major superpowers... America, communist Russia, Nazi Europe, Asian Japanica.

Did it ever occur to you that ours may be the alternate universe?
Of course it did. After all, our universe is the result of billions upon trillions of events throughout its entire existence; there's no way our universe is the true original one.

there is only the multiverse.

what you think you're interacting with and observing is only one momentary illusory aspect of the wave superposition state of an infinite number of simultaneous universes in one multiverse.

Some people will only believe thier political science of lies, accepting parts of science but not the whole. I see science as helpful in many ways, but I don't put my trust into any of it. Science can only look through the narrow window of the obhective. Not through the heightened awareness of the subjective. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

there is only the multiverse.

what you think you're interacting with and observing is only one momentary illusory aspect of the wave superposition state of an infinite number of simultaneous universes in one multiverse.
Of course; my mistake in not saying so.

I like it when people talk about science and "proof". Nothing ever has been proven. There is no proof that gravity exist. <snip>

I tell you what. We'll conduct a little experiment.

Go to the top of the nearest, tallest building, and jump off the top, in such a way as to land on the pavement at ground level with no intervening stops.

Make sure you're not using a rope, safety line, parachute, or other conveyance to slow your downward progress. We want a clean experiment.

After you've hit the ground, give us a call and tell us if gravity exists.

I'm so fed up with Alternate You Forgot Poland lording his cowboy hat over me.

I like it when people talk about science and "proof". Nothing ever has been proven. There is no proof that gravity exist. There is no proof that nuclear explosions kill people. There is no proof that the coputers we are using are powered by electricity. They may very well be powered by magical gumdrops from the planet mixbooobob. Any scienties that doesn't acknowledge these facts is either, arrogant, ignorant, stupid, or untrustworthy.

I always have to wonder about that arguement... I mean, how can you say there is no gravity? I mean, there's something that stops people from floating away into outer space or water, and we happen to call that thing gravity. Whether it be what we think it is, or large pink weasels with wings, that thing is still what we call gravity.

I always have to wonder about that arguement... I mean, how can you say there is no gravity? I mean, there's something that stops people from floating away into outer space or water, and we happen to call that thing gravity. Whether it be what we think it is, or large pink weasels with wings, that thing is still what we call gravity.

Karas did not say that there is no gravity, he simply said that there is no proof that gravity exists. He is right on that, all we have is the current best explanation of the observed phenomena, in this case gravity. No in science gravity is described as a basic force which is attractive between masses. No mention of large pink weasels. The point is that when we use the word gravity we think of the mass deformation of the space time continuum, or some such "scientific" image rather than some other non "scientific" set of mechanisms which produce the same phenomena. In the terms that Karas is using there is no proof.