Do you think parallel universes exist?

Megax60

Member
Its not a meme topic

Have you asked yourself if there is any parallel universe out there?
how do you explain
deja vu's, i think it is a collision between parallel universes, same goes for the mandela effect, and do you think someday we could transport to those PU'S?
and, how many are out there...
its a very interesting topic to talk about.

I had many deja vu's years before, but now, it just
does not happen.

You can talk about other interesting theories But be carefull when you talk about some theories, i dont want this thread to be deleted, just make sure to dont offend people.


I think the government hides us super advanced technology.
 
A

Agreeable

Guest
It's a hard one to argue either way for.

Do parallel universes exist as a replica of our own (minus changes over time) or is a parallel universe a different plane of existence co-existing in the same space? - 'the afterlife' as an example.

Do ghosts walk among us? Do we walk among ghosts? Does either know of the others existence? Are ghosts actually ghosts or are we the ghosts from their perspective?
 
G

Guest User

Guest
well this thread's topic is certainly deja vu for anyone who was here within the last 24 hours or so, and parallel universes (or at least the discussion of them) is certainly the cause.

the GMC is probably a wormhole between the infinite universes. that's the only explanation for this place that makes sense so far, tbh.
 

Megax60

Member
I think the destiny exists scientifically, i mean, its not a supernatural power or whatever, all and every single atom in the universe its already "programmed"

For example: you are going to buy tortillas (dont know how to say in english) and your fate is to die hit by a car, all the events are leading you to that event, there is no way to avoid it, unless you can see the future, wich is impossible.

SO, the destiny of every life its already programmed, scientifically of course
 
A

Agreeable

Guest
I think the destiny exists scientifically, i mean, its not a supernatural power or whatever, all and every single atom in the universe its already "programmed"

For example: you are going to buy tortillas (dont know how to say in english) and your fate is to die hit by a car, all the events are leading you to that event, there is no way to avoid it, unless you can see the future, wich is impossible.

SO, the destiny of every life its already programmed, scientifically of course
I'd agree with this actually. Even extending this to the extent of time travel.

All these movies saying 'don't go back in time, you'll break the future'.

Theoretically speaking, the travelling from the future to the past 'already happened'. So there was nothing to break in the future. It was always the way it was - so to speak.

'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure' illustrates this perfectly all the way through the movie. The future couldn't be broken as what happened in the past (although coming from the future) always happened. No paradox involved.
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
SO, the destiny of every life its already programmed, scientifically of course
I find the whole concept of Destiny to be rather depressing actually... If we are all "destined" then it means that NONE OF US HAVE FREE WILL. That is a terrible concept and is a great excuse for escaping the consequences of your own actions. Oops, looks like I am destined to kill that person! Oops, looks like I am destined to be a junkie! Seriously, the concept of destiny is so psychologically damaging that it should be erased from the human psyche... Humanity needs to escape these beliefs and take the universe (all of them) by the balls and say "I have free will and I am responsible for my actions" and get away from all this destiny/god/fate/religion crap.
 
A

Agreeable

Guest
I find the whole concept of Destiny to be rather depressing actually... If we are all "destined" then it means that NONE OF US HAVE FREE WILL. That is a terrible concept and is a great excuse for escaping the consequences of your own actions. Oops, looks like I am destined to kill that person! Oops, looks like I am destined to be a junkie! Seriously, the concept of destiny is so psychologically damaging that it should be erased from the human psyche... Humanity needs to escape these beliefs and take the universe (all of them) by the balls and say "I have free will and I am responsible for my actions" and get away from all this destiny/god/fate/religion crap.
I'm not a fan of the term 'destiny' either.

But even scientists believe that if all matter and energy was observed from the beginning of time (and given enough processing power), that all future outcomes could be predicted.

Everything has cause and effect. For example, someone posts something bad, you will delete the post. But what were the circumstances leading up to that which caused them to write the post, and so on.

Even by reading this, I am making you think about the concept. So, are you in control of what you are presently thinking or did I influence the direction of your thought patterns?


The brain is a weird thing, which makes me sometimes wonder how much we think we are actually in control. Introduction of alcohol and/or drugs into our system can completely alter the way we think. How can an external substance do that if we are really in control?

Some anesthetic's are classed as 'mind altering', so we aren't even conscious but can still follow instructions. To me, that's pretty frightening and makes we wonder if we really are in charge of what we think. Do we really have free will or are we just a combination of chemicals that make us think we do.
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
But even scientists believe that if all matter and energy was observed from the beginning of time (and given enough processing power), that all future outcomes could be predicted.
Yes, but scientists have also proved that OBSERVATION can profoundly change the way that reality behaves (see the famous two slit experiment), and so this means that our observation of the universe can fundamentally change how it works. Therefore our free will overcomes any predestined course that could have been set. ;)
 
A

Agreeable

Guest
Yes, but scientists have also proved that OBSERVATION can profoundly change the way that reality behaves (see the famous two slit experiment), and so this means that our observation of the universe can fundamentally change how it works. Therefore our free will overcomes any predestined course that could have been set. ;)
Unless I have misunderstood something, the results of the two slit experiment would still be the same regardless of if it was observed or not. Observing the phenomena doesn't change the way it behaves.
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
Unless I have misunderstood something, the results of the two slit experiment would still be the same regardless of if it was observed or not. Observing the phenomena doesn't change the way it behaves.
https://physicsworld.com/a/do-atoms-going-through-a-double-slit-know-if-they-are-being-observed/

"99.999% of physicists would say that the measurement – i.e. whether the beamsplitter is in or out – brings the observable into reality, and at that point the particle decides whether to be a wave or a particle.”

:)
 
G

Guest User

Guest
99.999% of physicists
why on earth would they go through all the rigors of scientific accuracy and factual claims only to devolve the credibility of their work and position of authority to the public with such a laughably informal statistic that's basically the universal signal for "i'm pulling all this out of my ass!". :confused:

99.9999% of people don't know this secret hand washing technique!
...this has nothing to do with whatever is going on here, i'm just baffled that's the best wording they could come up with. totally bizarre.
 
This is an interesting topic...there are a few sides, some philosophical, some scientific.

Free Will vs. Determinism has a lot of philosophical arguments put forward for it. At the moment I believe it comes down to an individual deciding for themselves that they are at the cause of and responsible for their life. Believing anything else puts you as a victim of the circumstances you are in and powerless to do anything else about it. Is it true? I don't know, its not able to be proven. But does it work? I believe so. It enables you to think and act from the point of view that you can and do influence how your life turns out.

But even scientists believe that if all matter and energy was observed from the beginning of time (and given enough processing power), that all future outcomes could be predicted
Do you have some data / research to back this quote up. I immediately thought of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which is similar to the observers effect, in that you can't predict both the position and velocity of a particle at the same time (more or less), thus negating your point above.
 
A

Agreeable

Guest
Do you have some data / research to back this quote up. I immediately thought of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which is similar to the observers effect, in that you can't predict both the position and velocity of a particle at the same time (more or less), thus negating your point above.
Einstein seemed to think so.

http://discovermagazine.com/2015/june/18-tomorrow-never-was


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these are my beliefs. No one really knows for a fact what goes on out there. Just throwing around thoughts.

I'd like to believe that we have free will also. But do we really? Probably.

But, where does instinct come from? The moment we take our first breath our instincts kick in. This would suggest we are preprogrammed, which we are. That is undeniable.

How can we be preprogrammed? How can DNA hold knowledge?
 
Einstein seemed to think so.

http://discovermagazine.com/2015/june/18-tomorrow-never-was


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these are my beliefs. No one really knows for a fact what goes on out there. Just throwing around thoughts.

I'd like to believe that we have free will also. But do we really? Probably.

But, where does instinct come from? The moment we take our first breath our instincts kick in. This would suggest we are preprogrammed, which we are. That is undeniable.

How can we be preprogrammed? How can DNA hold knowledge?
"God does not play dice with the Universe" - Einstein.

Yeah it's interesting because Einstein has been proven right experimentally now on so many things that he determined mathematically. It's really incredible. For example, the GPS system has to take relativity into account when determining peoples position on Earth, because the clocks in the GPS satellites run slower than our clocks down on earth.

If I recall correctly he didn't believe in chaos theory, that things could be random at a fundamental level.

Regarding the quoting sources, it wasn't just you, I noticed a whole lot of opinion being thrown around without adequate research to back it up.

It'd be really amazing if evey time we make a choice, a new parallel universe springs up to support that choice while the original one continues as it was if we didn't make that choice.
 

ElectroMan

Jack of All Shades
Lots of misconceptions about physics and mathematics here.

how do you explain
deja vu's, i think it is a collision between parallel universes, same goes for the mandela effect, and do you think someday we could transport to those PU'S?
Here are the two options from my perspective. Either we have all a common natural phenomenon resulting from our neurophysiology that erroneously leads us to believe we have lived a present moment in the past, or the laws of nature are so arbitrarily anthropocentric that "collisions of parallel universes" (whatever that means*) somehow only coalesce into a random primate's brain. The former is very intuitive and we actually have proof that the brain commonly plays tricks on us. The latter is philosophical woo at best. Occam's razor slices in favour of the naturalistic viewpoint.

*By definition parallel universes cannot influence one another, since that would make it part of the joint universe of them both. I'd have to review some other definition of "parallel universe" to make sense of that. (Which is unwieldy in such a murky and philosophically charged concept such as that.)

Theoretically speaking, the travelling from the future to the past 'already happened'. So there was nothing to break in the future. It was always the way it was - so to speak.
Yeah, you're referring to closed loops. Those bring out other types of problems. See causal loops. Basically, you bring into reality objects with not defined origin.

For example: you are going to buy tortillas (dont know how to say in english) and your fate is to die hit by a car, all the events are leading you to that event, there is no way to avoid it, unless you can see the future, wich is impossible.

SO, the destiny of every life its already programmed, scientifically of course
No. Fate is another philosophically charged concept. You're talking about fatalism, which imposes yet another needlessly anthropocentric bias onto natural laws. In its common usage, fatalism posits that certain events are already predetermined and that agents in the system may act freely between these events but that they are powerless face those particular key events.

Now I subscribe to a hard form of determinism, simply because it doesn't need to invoke a supernatural entity or phenomena to transcend the natural progression of reality (cause and effect). Free will necessitates it. Fatalism, or "destiny", also does. I feel no need to ad hoc some concept to justify moral responsibility, which brings me neatly to...

I find the whole concept of Destiny to be rather depressing actually... If we are all "destined" then it means that NONE OF US HAVE FREE WILL. That is a terrible concept and is a great excuse for escaping the consequences of your own actions. Oops, looks like I am destined to kill that person! Oops, looks like I am destined to be a junkie! Seriously, the concept of destiny is so psychologically damaging that it should be erased from the human psyche...
I think I already made clear between the concept of determinism and destiny/fatalism. Only the former is (generally) opposed to free will. But in any case, this is a weak argument because moral* responsibility is still dependent on the agents within a determined system insofar as the path taken can lead to statistically less evil deeds. You can look at a system which obeys the laws of cause and effect, and "opt" for future paths that lead to less incentive to commit crime and more incentive to respect human rights. Essentially you are affecting the environment in which human behaviour emerges and is borne from. Sure, a guy killing someone would be determined from the offset, but the incentives are in place that he does it despite his best interests. So it's a less likely occurrence within a determined reality.

Think of it like this: everything is determined but as of yet we have no way of knowing the outcome. Ignorance of the future is key. Therefore the best we can do is construct a system where that uncertainty is more tightly controlled for less undesirable outcomes.

*I am a moral nihilist, so "good" and "evil" are not meaningful concepts to me. But I will grant the existence of morality for the time being to get my point across more pragmatically.


Yes, but scientists have also proved that OBSERVATION can profoundly change the way that reality behaves (see the famous two slit experiment), and so this means that our observation of the universe can fundamentally change how it works. Therefore our free will overcomes any predestined course that could have been set. ;)
Again, a common theme around these sorts of conversations among laymen is the "anthropocentri-zation" of natural laws. Observation only means "interaction with," it has nothing to do with the colloquial term of the word. You could be a blind person with no way of seeing the phenomena, but observation only requires interaction with the physical system. Indeed, an inanimate object can observe a system in this sense. It just means that at some point the physical system is closed, and then it is suddenly open to another system.

Unless I have misunderstood something, the results of the two slit experiment would still be the same regardless of if it was observed or not. Observing the phenomena doesn't change the way it behaves.
No, the wave collapses to the outside observer when it is interacted with (i.e. observed) so nature just "snaps" into one of the possible outcomes. That is what putting a detector in one of the slits means. It means a device that interacts with the photon, which has it have a different behaviour.

Do you have some data / research to back this quote up. I immediately thought of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which is similar to the observers effect, in that you can't predict both the position and velocity of a particle at the same time (more or less), thus negating your point above.
You can predict them both to however accuracy you want at the cost of the other. The uncertainty principle just plays with the fact that (in layman's terms) if you see a wave in space oscillating from one point to the other, you can obviously see its frequency, but its position can be anywhere in that oscillating line. Now, if you shrink that wave down to just a single point in space, you lose knowledge about the frequency because it wouldn't make sense to calculate a frequency of a single data point. It boils down to that interplay between wave and particle. This says nothing about predicting the evolution of a system, in which case quantum mechanics would be worthless if it couldn't predict anything.
 

Megax60

Member
It'd be really amazing if evey time we make a choice, a new parallel universe springs up to support that choice while the original one continues as it was if we didn't make that choice.
This makes me think, do our brain has the same RNG system that game engines?

You know, that every "frame" our rng system is holding a number, and in the next frame it changes, making us take different choises, that would explain the different choises in the parallel universes
 
A

Agreeable

Guest
No, the wave collapses to the outside observer when it is interacted with (i.e. observed) so nature just "snaps" into one of the possible outcomes. That is what putting a detector in one of the slits means. It means a device that interacts with the photon, which has it have a different behaviour.
This convinces me even less now. So, if @Nocturne closes his eyes and no longer 'observes' the outcome, it ceases to exist?

This sounds like nothing more than a lenticular printing.

Either way, it comes back to the theory I made earlier. Did he interact with this out of choice or did the direction of waves and particles from the beginning of time fall in a way that fired neurons that made him decide or 'think' he was deciding to interact at that particular point in time?

After that, the 'reward' neurons released a short hit of dopamine to make him feel good, further 'enforcing' that he thought that he made an independent decision?


@Nocturne - This is by no means a go at you. Just using your earlier example as reference point of discussion. I'm no quantum physicist, so I'm not making historical claims here. Just a friendly chat about 'what if'. :)

Goes for all replies here too. I'm not saying anyone's comments are wrong. How would (or will) anyone ever really know? :cool:
 

ElectroMan

Jack of All Shades
This convinces me even less now. So, if @Nocturne closes his eyes and no longer 'observes' the outcome, it ceases to exist?

This sounds like nothing more than a lenticular printing.
Precisely the opposite of what I said:
Observation only means "interaction with," it has nothing to do with the colloquial term of the word. You could be a blind person with no way of seeing the phenomena, but observation only requires interaction with the physical system. Indeed, an inanimate object can observe a system in this sense. It just means that at some point the physical system is closed, and then it is suddenly open to another system.
I'm no quantum physicist, so I'm not making historical claims here.
Oh no, wouldn't want any of those physicists around these parts.
 
A

Agreeable

Guest
Observation only means "interaction with," it has nothing to do with the colloquial term of the word. You could be a blind person with no way of seeing the phenomena, but observation only requires interaction with the physical system. Indeed, an inanimate object can observe a system in this sense. It just means that at some point the physical system is closed, and then it is suddenly open to another system
Like interaction between particles or some sort of force at a particular point in time?

Yes, but scientists have also proved that OBSERVATION can profoundly change the way that reality behaves (see the famous two slit experiment), and so this means that our observation of the universe can fundamentally change how it works. Therefore our free will overcomes any predestined course that could have been set. ;)
So this experiment doesn't relate to Noc's argument of 'free will' in any way then. Given that the direction of all matter etc, from the start of time has (theoretically) determined the state of his 'free will' at a particular point in time.
 
Nope. No parallel universes. Even if there were an alternate universe, it wouldn't be parallel. Something would have happened a long time ago to deviate things. Your ancestors from the 1700s would have never met and your linage wouldn't exist. Knowing there's another you in another universe is positive dreaming at its finest.

If you have deja vu pay attention to your triggers, they're mini seizure that confuses your short term memory for long term memory.

I can spin it in a different way that deja vu is you remembering something because when everything dies, its born again, not as something else, but as themselves when they were born with no memory except for little blips here and there in deja vu.
 
Last edited:
Yes, thare are alternate universes, but they don't exist.

Was that a typo? No. It's my new religion, (we are accepting new converts). This universe, and all other possible universes, are real, but only from the point of view of something that is within that universe. All other universes besides the one you happen to occupy are totally fictional. The essence of my religion is that the idea of something, if self consistent, is enough to make it true, but only from its own point of view.
 
A

Agreeable

Guest
I'm a peripheral visionary. I can see the future, but it is off to the side and a little blurry.
 

Amon

Member
Past, future.....both exist within the human mind as a thought. That's it. Your memories of the past power your intuition when thinking of the future. When the past meets the future you get now.

Consider that only 3 days exist in your life. Two of them you have no control over. Yesterday is gone, so you can't control that. Tomorrow hasn't happened yet so you can't control that either. That leaves today. Today is the only day you have control over.

Why am I telling you this? Dunno.
 

Megax60

Member
The universe was created by the big bang eh? what if the other universes are a mirror of our, what if all the universes are the same, because all started with the same process, but they have different ages
 

Amon

Member
All matter in the universe concentrated to one single point, a singularity, that decided to go bang, could not have happened. Why? The moment it went bang, this matter, all the matter in the universe, would have generated a gravitational force so immense that an instance after going bang, it would have collapsed in on itself forming a black hole on a universal scale. Einsteins relativity equation says so. So, either Albert Einstein was wrong and there was a big bang or Einstein is correct thus making the possibility of a mass of that size going bang, impossible.

In fact, when taking a look at the theoretical mass of the observable universe, and squashing it to one point in space, I am more likely to believe in a big implosion, and the fact that our entire universe exists within a supermassive black hole, then I would believe in a big explosion i.e. a big bang.
 

Megax60

Member
All matter in the universe concentrated to one single point, a singularity, that decided to go bang, could not have happened. Why? The moment it went bang, this matter, all the matter in the universe, would have generated a gravitational force so immense that an instance after going bang, it would have collapsed in on itself forming a black hole on a universal scale.
What if the explosion was so unbelievable strong that it could escape the gravitational force.

think about it, while less matter concentres in a point and explodes, the explosion is less stronger and it goes very slow, but the entire universe in a single point? when it exploded its speed was so MUCH faster than light, it was so fast that it could escape the g.f.
 

Amon

Member
Unlikely. That would make Einstein wrong. The theoretical speed limit for anything in the universe is the speed of light. The C in E=MC2.

Let us say that the matter did explode outward faster than the speed of light. It would have to travel at a speed of more than C*1000 in order prevent a supermassive black hole forming. Now let us say that the blast was that strong to accelerate matter to C*1000 speeds. It would mean that what we see today with telescopes couldn't possibly be seen.

The observable universe is around 13.5-13.8 billion light years in size. This means that if you were traveling at the speed of light, to get from one side to the other would take you around 13.5 billion years. Looking at the rate of expansion shows us that the big bang could not have blasted outward faster than the speed of light. The math does not agree. Even more so if the blast hurtled outward at C*1000 speeds.
 

Megax60

Member
@Amon mhh... what if the explosion was creating matter continuously for a while, someway or other, in that case a black hole was impossible to be created

EDIT: what if it keeps creating matter even today
EDIT2: "matter cannot be created or destroyed" then how the universe was created, remember there was nothing but black before the universe, matter can be created
 
Last edited:

Gradius

Member
@Amon
EDIT2: "matter cannot be created or destroyed" then how the universe was created, remember there was nothing but black before the universe, matter can be created
I think you'd struggle to find a single scientist that would claim that the energy that makes up the universe came into existence with the big bang. It may have, but there's absolutely no certainty that the energy of our universe didn't exist prior to the spacetime that makes up the fabric of the universe.

Applying the rules of the universe to things like the creation of it doesn't always make sense either. Matter in our universe can't (with a few semi-exceptions like Hawking particles that preserve net energy) be created out of nothing, but there's nothing to say that universes can't pop out of nothing with matter in them. Once you're not inside the boundries of the universe all our laws of physics, logic, casuality, or anything else are potentially thrown out of the window.
 

Megax60

Member
I think you'd struggle to find a single scientist that would claim that the energy that makes up the universe came into existence with the big bang. It may have, but there's absolutely no certainty that the energy of our universe didn't exist prior to the spacetime that makes up the fabric of the universe.

Applying the rules of the universe to things like the creation of it doesn't always make sense either. Matter in our universe can't (with a few semi-exceptions like Hawking particles that preserve net energy) be created out of nothing, but there's nothing to say that universes can't pop out of nothing with matter in them. Once you're not inside the boundries of the universe all our laws of physics, logic, casuality, or anything else are potentially thrown out of the window.
There is no evidence that matter can or can't be created, not because we dont know how it is possible to create matter, it makes it impossible
 

ElectroMan

Jack of All Shades
Dang, cosmology isn't exactly my strong suit, but here are some answers.

The moment it went bang, this matter, all the matter in the universe, would have generated a gravitational force so immense that an instance after going bang, it would have collapsed in on itself forming a black hole on a universal scale. Einsteins relativity equation says so. So, either Albert Einstein was wrong and there was a big bang or Einstein is correct thus making the possibility of a mass of that size going bang, impossible.
Provide the mathematical equations that say so. The Big Bang is happening to this day, it's not an old relic from the past. There was a rapid expansion of space some 13.8 billion years ago, and then it settled for a bit before having the accelerated expansion we see nowadays. Where does general relativity disprove this? It would be a real embarrassment if two of the most foundationally sound theories in physics disproved one another.

Unlikely. That would make Einstein wrong. The theoretical speed limit for anything in the universe is the speed of light. The C in E=MC2.
No, tachyons are theoretically possible. You mean the practical speed limit of objects with mass is c. Or more rigorously, it approaches c. Massless particles always move at that speed.

The observable universe is around 13.5-13.8 billion light years in size. This means that if you were traveling at the speed of light, to get from one side to the other would take you around 13.5 billion years. Looking at the rate of expansion shows us that the big bang could not have blasted outward faster than the speed of light. The math does not agree.
What are you talking about? The observable universe is about 91 billion light years from one end to the other, that is, if we picture it as a sphere the radius is about 45.7 billion light years. In any case, why does it imply the Big Bang "blasted outwards faster than the speed of light"? If the rate of expansion is enormous, you can have particles moving at a proper distance seemingly faster than c, but in fact because the space-time continuum is stretching, in the metric of actual space, its speed is always (or lower than) c.

"matter cannot be created or destroyed" then how the universe was created, remember there was nothing but black before the universe, matter can be created
It may have, but there's absolutely no certainty that the energy of our universe didn't exist prior to the spacetime that makes up the fabric of the universe.
Since time started at the origin of space-time, the Big Bang, it may be nonsensical to ask "what came before time?," since it implies a causal link. You need time for causal phenomena.

Matter in our universe can't (with a few semi-exceptions like Hawking particles that preserve net energy) be created out of nothing, but there's nothing to say that universes can't pop out of nothing with matter in them.
See quantum fluctuation. Virtual particles can pop in and out of existence because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You can think of the position/momentum relationship the same as energy/time. This means that a big uncertainty in energy means a more accurate reading of time. This means that in sufficiently small amount of time the uncertainty in energy can be so large that an electron and positron pair can pop into existence and annihilate each other before you can even measure them. In fact, this is how Hawking particles come about in a black hole, since it's when one of these virtual particles is created outside the event horizon and the other one is created inside. Moreover these virtual particles play a fundamental role in particle interactions.

I didn't have a point with that last paragraph, I just think it's cool.
 
C

chiyoko

Guest
I think if parallel universes exist they're a thing to aim for and possibly reach, if nothing else because I *REALLY* want to see what I mighta become, given enough time and effort XP

But on a more logical standpoint, if *THIS* universe exists, why doesnt more? why *JUST* this one? it stands to reason that if one thing exists, theres probably either BEEN more, there IS more, or there WILL BE more.
 
Yes, but scientists have also proved that OBSERVATION can profoundly change the way that reality behaves (see the famous two slit experiment), and so this means that our observation of the universe can fundamentally change how it works. Therefore our free will overcomes any predestined course that could have been set. ;)
I don't follow your logic here. I don't know much about quantum mechanics, though. I thought observing particles just locked down their state or something? How would that change your destiny or lack of free will? We'd still just basically be robots in a mostly deterministic universe with some true random calculations thrown in, right? Are the enemies in my game actually showing free will just because I have them randomly change directions once in awhile? Sorry, gotta spread the existential horror around as best I can, hahah.

We still don't know why or how observing quantum particles changes them, either. Maybe the universe is a big simulation, and these quantum hijinks are the universe's way of saving processing power when nobody's looking? Same way we cull geometry rendering to the player's view, hahah. :')

Edit: Also, "I don't have free will, so I'm not responsible when I'm an 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩!" is a valid observation, but I think it's a really pessimistic one. My thoughts (when I'm unfortunate enough to think about this stuff) are "nobody is responsible for anything, so we should all forgive everyone for anything they've done wrong, and work toward creating as much happiness and beauty in the world as possible." Basically, if we're all just part of the same giant deterministic system, isn't that actually kind of nice? All of humanity, the Earth, the Sun and the stars are basically all one infinite being/machine. I think it makes more sense that a lack of free will would erase all walls between us, rather than build them up. It's a beautiful idea if you look at it from the right angle! =)

...And an existentially depressing idea if you look at it from another, hahah! My advice is to just go outside and enjoy the trees and the Sun! ;)
 
Last edited:

RangerX

Member
I don't know if parallel universe are possible. I would like to think though that dimensions or different perceptions or reality can exist inside one universe. We all matter and a vibration in a sense. What if there are other "frequencies" but the little radios we are can't catch them...

Also, I think the universe is an entire other concept than most scientists think. I think its having no shape or form and that it doesn't begin or end. Its an entirely other concept that our brains can't really grasp. To me its infinite. Meaning it doesn't begin, doesn't end and therefore doesn't have a shape. I mean, its all cool the big band and stuff. So that dot that exploded in the beginning, what was its container? What was before the big bang? I mean, its natural for us to think by instinct that all must begin and end, that all must be "created", that all must have a shape. Its because of the dimension we live in, its because we are ephemere beings that sees in 3D. We see stuff appear and disappear, that's all we can see. We also are concious we aren't infinite, that we come from something and end up dead or something else. I think this is a perception that shows our limits, that shows the dimension of that universe we can perceive. But I doubt the universe is only what we perceive. And I think the existence itself is something bigger than what we can measure and maybe understand.
 
D

DanniBoy

Guest
It can't be proved or disproved if there are parallel universes or not, but I like to think there is. I can think of a version of me who isn't a lazy git and is actually successful at what he does xD
 

Amon

Member
So, if parallel universes are real and are created even when we make a choice i.e. I chose to go left but in a parallel universe I went right etc it would mean that if I chose, right now, not to design a machine that successfully allows me to traverse the parallel universes, it means there is a parallel universe where I did successfully build a machine to traverse parallel universes, meaning the me from that parallel universe will appear right next to me right now.

I'm waiting.

Oh, Time Paradoxes. That's another brain fizzler. I like the one about sending messages.

You build a time machine, turn it on, then wait ten years. After ten years you send, back in time, a message to let the you of ten years ago know that the time machine works. That means when you build the time machine and turn it on for the first time, you will immediately get a message from the future you, telling you the time machine works even though you haven't waited 10 years and only just switched it on.
 

Megax60

Member
You build a time machine, turn it on, then wait ten years. After ten years you send, back in time, a message to let the you of ten years ago know that the time machine works. That means when you build the time machine and turn it on for the first time, you will immediately get a message from the future you, telling you the time machine works even though you haven't waited 10 years and only just switched it on.
you would send a message to you from another timeline

https://www.philforhumanity.com/pix/Timeline_3.bmp imagine the "time travel" is the message, you would not recive the message when you turn it on, the other you from another timeline will recive the message,
 

Amon

Member
So, in the original timeline, the time machine doesn't work for that timeline. It sends the message to a different timeline created by the time machine? Therefore time travel within the same timeline as the machine that initiated the time travel is not possible. Each timeline though has a machine that initiated time travel.

hmmm!

Temporal Paradox again? Or, the creator has disabled function recursion within the reality.
 

Megax60

Member
So, in the original timeline, the time machine doesn't work for that timeline. It sends the message to a different timeline created by the time machine? Therefore time travel within the same timeline as the machine that initiated the time travel is not possible. Each timeline though has a machine that initiated time travel.

hmmm!

Temporal Paradox again? Or, the creator has disabled function recursion within the reality.
the message is sended to the 2nd timeline, and if possible, the 2nd sends message to 3nd and so on
 

Roa

Member
Its not a meme topic

Have you asked yourself if there is any parallel universe out there?
how do you explain
deja vu's, i think it is a collision between parallel universes, same goes for the mandela effect, and do you think someday we could transport to those PU'S?
and, how many are out there...
its a very interesting topic to talk about.

I had many deja vu's years before, but now, it just
does not happen.

You can talk about other interesting theories But be carefull when you talk about some theories, i dont want this thread to be deleted, just make sure to dont offend people.


I think the government hides us super advanced technology.
If by definition of parallel universes; you mean copies of our experience somewhere else with slight altercations for every action/inaction, then absolutely not. To talk about it in a man-made limited phylisophical talking point about past actions, its just that. But to think there is any actual laws of nature that cator to this view or why it would be this way, that's a really preposterous idea. There is not really anything to back this up and the entire concept is drummed up on rules that don't really have reason or evaluation.

I explain deja vu is simply your mind doing what it likes to do best, filling in information you seem to have missed. I have this happen a lot at work, cause there is tons of reputation and sometimes I can't remember if I did do something or not, even if I feel that I had or hadn't. Nothing really special, complex or mysterious about it.

Also, nice trigger tag. Normally I would laugh and say what could you say that's offensive, wracking my head on that one, but this is 2018 lol
I'm not a fan of the term 'destiny' either.

But even scientists believe that if all matter and energy was observed from the beginning of time (and given enough processing power), that all future outcomes could be predicted.

Everything has cause and effect. For example, someone posts something bad, you will delete the post. But what were the circumstances leading up to that which caused them to write the post, and so on.

Even by reading this, I am making you think about the concept. So, are you in control of what you are presently thinking or did I influence the direction of your thought patterns?
What scientist? They arn't very good scientist if they believe some model could predict every event up until now lol. Also, don't conflate energy and matter as choice and agency. matter and energy can be predicted due to very simple and very strict laws of how they enact, but as beings of reason and more than just primitive particles, its very easy work in ways outside these baser truths, even if they are a cornerstone for the small things.

FE: There is no scientific model or law that would predict at any given moment if you want to raise your left hand or right hand. You could do either, or both, or none and walk away from the request to do so lol.
And yes, reading other's comments can influence other people's thinking, what a novel concept. internalizing it is all based on your agency though.

The brain is a weird thing, which makes me sometimes wonder how much we think we are actually in control. Introduction of alcohol and/or drugs into our system can completely alter the way we think. How can an external substance do that if we are really in control?

Some anesthetic's are classed as 'mind altering', so we aren't even conscious but can still follow instructions. To me, that's pretty frightening and makes we wonder if we really are in charge of what we think. Do we really have free will or are we just a combination of chemicals that make us think we do.
You are in control up to the point where you realize you out of control. There are signs your brain fires off to let you know 💩💩💩💩 aint right or that its taking over. You are able to the tell when you are sober or not, correct? When you are high or dizzy, right? The difference between a dream and being awake? When you make conscious decisions, its an entirely different state of mind than that of being altered or hallucinated and your brains will tell you(whether you pick up on it or not) that things are happening that you may or may not be direct control over. Dreams are very much to the same effect of drugs and stuff that draw out different behaviors from your mind, but you can still even take agency there with a little self realization and you can have these two states of mind over lap. It's called lucid dreaming. These 2 things exist at once and be operate independent. Your free will never really goes anywhere. You arnt trading one for the other. It's just how much of it are you excising while you drug yourself up lol.

Subconscious state is literally just the lack of focus on the conscious state, and the conscious state basically just sits up front because focus on sensory information has precedence. Your brain however likes to respond and latch onto certain chemicals and when it puts so much focus and use on that, that's when your perception and sensory self starts to falter and you get less information.(this is your high, your dreaming, your drunkenness, your anesthesia ) It's still there and responsive, but its not driving anymore.

When you sleep, that is literally just the brain dumping chemicals to shut out your sensory self. If you actually train yourself for it, you can even feel the exact moment this happens and even learn to control it a bit. I've actually managed to do this a couple times. Its quite scary actually, cause you can dream while still awake, and you can feel your body shutting down. But yeah, even in that state, the 2 co-exist.
 
Last edited:
F

flambastic

Guest
I don't know honestly. I have a strong disbelief that there is a universe with an infinity of combination of things.
 
T

TitanAnteus

Guest
I subscribe to the belief that we live in a simulation soooo.... that's kind of the same thing. Just which layer of simulation we're in I guess.
 
Top