Forums of the Megaverse®

I'm sure we've all seen the typical sci-fi plot of something creates a bomb that will cause all the dimensions/realities to collapse in on themsleves thus destroying everything and only the PCs stand in the way.
Well Steven Hawkins says there are an infinite number of alternate realities reflecting every possible outcome. Well if thats true, wouldn't one series of events lead to the creation of such a device? Even if the charaters stopped it there wouldn't there be another reality where they failed.

Yeah I had heard about that, but wasn't saying that there weren't whiteholes where it'd all be spit out not about alternate realities?
Unless he changes them, alternate realities is still one of his two theories of time travel.

You're pretty much describing a paradox. Perhaps only that one reality is destroyed. If you think too hard about it your brain will seize up and you'll flop over. Questions like that are better left to the Q to ponder.

Carl

Carl Gleba wrote:You're pretty much describing a paradox. Perhaps only that one reality is destroyed. If you think too hard about it your brain will seize up and you'll flop over. Questions like that are better left to the Q to ponder.

Carl

What he said

Carl Gleba wrote:You're pretty much describing a paradox. Perhaps only that one reality is destroyed. If you think too hard about it your brain will seize up and you'll flop over. Questions like that are better left to the Q to ponder.

Carl

Funny you should phrase it like that, one of the more common causes of a brain seizing IS thinking too hard/fast.

Zerebus wrote:

kamikazzijoe wrote:

Carl Gleba wrote:You're pretty much describing a paradox. Perhaps only that one reality is destroyed. If you think too hard about it your brain will seize up and you'll flop over. Questions like that are better left to the Q to ponder.

Carl

Funny you should phrase it like that, one of the more common causes of a brain seizing IS thinking too hard/fast.

Hell, I've had brain burn in some of my advanced mathematics courses...

Take two tylenol and then get back to work.

Chances are, such a device can only grab so many realities based on "locality", or "similarity", such that the eventuality of such a device existing become nonexistant because all possible paths of reality leadings towards the construction of such a device are severed.

Good answer

Carl

kamikazzijoe wrote:I'm sure we've all seen the typical sci-fi plot of something creates a bomb that will cause all the dimensions/realities to collapse in on themsleves thus destroying everything and only the PCs stand in the way.
Well Steven Hawkins says there are an infinite number of alternate realities reflecting every possible outcome. Well if thats true, wouldn't one series of events lead to the creation of such a device? Even if the charaters stopped it there wouldn't there be another reality where they failed.

Just because there are (POTENTIALLY, mind you) an Infinite Number of Quantum Universes doesn't mean that your ''Reality Bomb'' was EVER developed in ANY of them.

For one thing, Hawking said that different Quantum Realities are (theoretically) created EVERY time ANY Particle in the Universe goes this way instead of that way. The ONLY difference that may may exist differently in ALL of these Universes is the switched Spacetime Coordinates of a "few" Quarks, and EVERYTHING else could be EXACTLY the same.

For another thing, Hawking believes that, mathematically speaking, our Universe existing as it does (coherent Time and Matter that will last over 100 TRILLION years instead of Subatomic Soup or a Universe that never would have emerged from the Big Bang) is a potentially incredibly rare Event...........

If there are infinte number of universes, if such a bomb were possible would be created, even if its potential is 100 trillion years down our timeline. So that would mean that either the device isn't possible or there are not infinite universes.

I thought it was Jim Hawkins.

kamikazzijoe wrote:If there are infinte number of universes, if such a bomb were possible would be created, even if its potential is 100 trillion years down our timeline. So that would mean that either the device isn't possible or there are not infinite universes.

No, one does NOT necessarily follow the other. It MAY be possible, someway, somehow, somewhere, somewhen, but that doesn't mean the Device itself will be built, or even thought of, in those Quantum Universes. Even within the multitudes and multitudes that make this Infinite number, the changes that make up those Universes could ALL be as simple as 1 Particle going this way instead of that, or one where a certain teenager named Hitler walked past whatever passed for a recruitment office before World War I....

The Infinite Universe Hypothesis is just an attempt to reason God out of existence.

By the I.U.H. the Universe could be a random event, or it could just be here because it's here because it's here because it's here.

It is overly complicated though, and even Hawking has now recanted that the biggest reason for the I.U.H. in the first place (black holes not letting go of information) was probably wrong.

I'm not a big fan of I.U.H. theories, while I've never met an idea that caused brain burn (just long periods of deep meditative thought followed by abrupt outburts of laughter) I find the concept of an Infinity, of any type to be silly...

As physicists say, if Infinity is the Answer, you're asking the wrong Question.

Edge wrote:I'm not a big fan of I.U.H. theories, while I've never met an idea that caused brain burn (just long periods of deep meditative thought followed by abrupt outburts of laughter) I find the concept of an Infinity, of any type to be silly...

As physicists say, if Infinity is the Answer, you're asking the wrong Question.

Seizing from thinking to fast is a physiological trait, either brain is wired to operate that way or it doesnt. Kinda like wiring a computer to be overclocked.

I thought the answer to any question asked by a physicist was, "Its relative."

eric.cline wrote:Well theres always the anthropomorphic principle. We exist and therefore such a device or event was not, will not, and/or cannot occur.

Kinda roundabout way to use the principle of Occum's razor, but your point is agreed upon.....

Zerebus wrote:

kamikazzijoe wrote:

Carl Gleba wrote:You're pretty much describing a paradox. Perhaps only that one reality is destroyed. If you think too hard about it your brain will seize up and you'll flop over. Questions like that are better left to the Q to ponder.

Carl

Funny you should phrase it like that, one of the more common causes of a brain seizing IS thinking too hard/fast.

Hell, I've had brain burn in some of my advanced mathematics courses...

Take two tylenol and then get back to work.

Chances are, such a device can only grab so many realities based on "locality", or "similarity", such that the eventuality of such a device existing become nonexistant because all possible paths of reality leadings towards the construction of such a device are severed.

Oh man, my brain was trying to process that and I messed myself.






Again.

Jesterzzn wrote:

Zerebus wrote:

kamikazzijoe wrote:

Carl Gleba wrote:You're pretty much describing a paradox. Perhaps only that one reality is destroyed. If you think too hard about it your brain will seize up and you'll flop over. Questions like that are better left to the Q to ponder.

Carl

Funny you should phrase it like that, one of the more common causes of a brain seizing IS thinking too hard/fast.

Hell, I've had brain burn in some of my advanced mathematics courses...

Take two tylenol and then get back to work.

Chances are, such a device can only grab so many realities based on "locality", or "similarity", such that the eventuality of such a device existing become nonexistant because all possible paths of reality leadings towards the construction of such a device are severed.

Oh man, my brain was trying to process that and I messed myself.






Again.

Still say it's easier to just deny all other realities necessity and choose a god.

[/quote]

Well, if you can't make up your mind as to whether or not you exist....

Well.... John Gardner's Grendel is a decent paradigm of how to handle that.[/i][/quote]

The philosophy course at RPI started the first 2 hour session discussing whether or not a book on a table existed. You'd think with tht many scientist and engineers in a room they could prove to the prof a text book existed. Hasn't happened yet.

kamikazzijoe wrote:The philosophy course at RPI started the first 2 hour session discussing whether or not a book on a table existed. You'd think with tht many scientist and engineers in a room they could prove to the prof a text book existed. Hasn't happened yet.

I'm Blind, This text is being read to me, I've never seen something in my life.

Prove the color Blue exists.

Zerebus wrote:That's probably because you aren't allowed to pick the book up and hit people over the head with it.

yeah, proving a book is alot easier than proving the color blue.

you can't hit me with blue.

Edge wrote:

Zerebus wrote:That's probably because you aren't allowed to pick the book up and hit people over the head with it.

yeah, proving a book is alot easier than proving the color blue.

you can't hit me with blue.

Its just the color your head turns after it gets hit by the book.

Still doesn't help.

If I'm blind and never seen blue, there is no way you can prove to me that blue exists.

Here's a challenge: prove anything exists. In order to do that, you'd have to prove that the object really IS there, rather than simply being a mass hallucination.

It's kind of like the theory that says "If everyone truly believes the sky is purple, then it's purple. It no longer matters if it is or not, it only matters what people believe. We believe we exist, therefore, theoretically, we exist."

(At least, I think that's how it goes... )

Inazuma wrote:Here's a challenge: prove anything exists. In order to do that, you'd have to prove that the object really IS there, rather than simply being a mass hallucination.

It's kind of like the theory that says "If everyone truly believes the sky is purple, then it's purple. It no longer matters if it is or not, it only matters what people believe. We believe we exist, therefore, theoretically, we exist."

(At least, I think that's how it goes... )

"if you tell a lie often enough it becomes believed. If it becomes believed enough it becomes the truth"--Hitler

Edge wrote:Still doesn't help.

If I'm blind and never seen blue, there is no way you can prove to me that blue exists.

Heck... they can't prove it to you if you're so much as color blind... any color term just refers to the visible aspects of that wavelength... so if you don't know color, to you it's just a weird name

oddly enough, you could describe to me energy, and light, and explain that blue is merely a description of the visible wavelengths of electromagnetic energy.

even a blind man can feel the sun on his skin.

Edge wrote:even a blind man can feel the sun on his skin...

...unless said blind man was also numb.