Don't ever let them see you cheat.

[AFK]

Bullshit,  it's multinothing!   

[Ambassador KAOS]

the everett model is unporoven but I'm pretty sure it's like aether physics, it can't be defined without nullifying what it is.

You'd never know even if you were slipping between realities right now.

It may not be proven but it's the only way I've ever been able to wrap my head around paradox.

Not the expert on this one either, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

If I am please show me something.

[Messier Undertree]

Bullshit,  it's multinothing!   

Motorcycle.

[AFK]

multi-motorcycle with a side car. 

[LMNO]

the everett model is unporoven but I'm pretty sure it's like aether physics, it can't be defined without nullifying what it is.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Everett did define it.  With math.  He took Feynman's universal wave function, postulated time as a constant, and built superimposed universes on top of it.  Boom.  Definition.

It has yet to be proven though, and so exists in the state of either meaningless (if it cannot be tested), or unproven (if the technology isn't up to the task yet).  Either way, you're taking the theory on faith.  I know it would be fun to live in a Sci-Fi novel, but that ain't the way it is.

[Ambassador KAOS]

fair enough.

thank god for word police...

it can't be proven* without defying it's definition.

/fix

[LMNO]

How so?


Here, have some rope.

[Ambassador KAOS]

Just like this:

Bullshit,  it's multinothing!   

Motorcycle.

Preface: like I said I'm not the expert, from what little I've read (prolly like 5 or 6 articles, mostly critiques) that's how I understand it.  I am certainly not an expert.

aether physics: you can't find an aether wind because the aether is all containing, there is nothing to contrast it with.

the same goes for the mulitple words theory, you'd never know you went into another realm.  We'd have to try to be sure but that's a bit beyond technology so far.  even detecting the shift at all would likely be difficult, how would you be sure that the person you sent didn't just have a hallucination if the transition is seamless.  It very well may happen all the time without us being able to detect it.

That's also a load from ass so try not to digest it as fact.  treat it for what it is, just what I've been led to understand.

[LHX]

if the transition is seemless and youd never know - it sounds to me like this is a discussion that needs to be barstooled


nobody even knows what a 'realm' is anyway

as far as we know - every time we make a choice we shift to a different place - so lets focus on that for now

[Ambassador KAOS]

agreed. 

barstool emoticon needed IMO.

it deserves an icon.

[LMNO]

Preface: like I said I'm not the expert, from what little I've read (prolly like 5 or 6 articles, mostly critiques) that's how I understand it.  I am certainly not an expert.

aether physics: you can't find an aether wind because the aether is all containing, there is nothing to contrast it with.

the same goes for the mulitple words theory, you'd never know you went into another realm.  We'd have to try to be sure but that's a bit beyond technology so far.  even detecting the shift at all would likely be difficult, how would you be sure that the person you sent didn't just have a hallucination if the transition is seamless.  It very well may happen all the time without us being able to detect it.

That's also a load from ass so try not to digest it as fact.  treat it for what it is, just what I've been led to understand.

You've been led to understand horseshit.  You're saying that because you can't subjectively experience it, there's no way to prove it.  In that case, gamma rays don't exist, either.

The whole point of modern physics, starting with Einstein and going all the way to (in this case) Everett, is to remove the subjective observer from the equations.




Now, to take it from the purely speculative philisophical point, you still haven't said how subjective evidence of a parallel universe model negates the model itself.

[Ambassador KAOS]

Preface: like I said I'm not the expert, from what little I've read (prolly like 5 or 6 articles, mostly critiques) that's how I understand it.  I am certainly not an expert.

aether physics: you can't find an aether wind because the aether is all containing, there is nothing to contrast it with.

the same goes for the mulitple words theory, you'd never know you went into another realm.  We'd have to try to be sure but that's a bit beyond technology so far.  even detecting the shift at all would likely be difficult, how would you be sure that the person you sent didn't just have a hallucination if the transition is seamless.  It very well may happen all the time without us being able to detect it.

That's also a load from ass so try not to digest it as fact.  treat it for what it is, just what I've been led to understand.

You've been led to understand horseshit.  You're saying that because you can't subjectively experience it, there's no way to prove it.  In that case, gamma rays don't exist, either.

The whole point of modern physics, starting with Einstein and going all the way to (in this case) Everett, is to remove the subjective observer from the equations.




Now, to take it from the purely speculative philisophical point, you still haven't said how subjective evidence of a parallel universe model negates the model itself.

I think you misunderstood something somewhere...

try this again:

if an aether is all encompassing and is the supposed block of reality we'd have to compare it to non-reality to contrast it.

Non-reality cannot be detected.

that means that you can't detect the aether either as there is nothing to contrast it with.

In the case of many worlds you'd have to contrast it with non-reality many worlds, also undetectable as they lack substance.

proving that either one exists is to say you can detect something that isn't there because both are all encompassing, one being all possibility and the other be all universal existence.  Even zero is detectable on a grid because there is point of reference.

The nature of the 2 items in question is that there is no point of reference.  It's like trying to find the center or the outside of infinity, you can't do it because it negates the deffinition.

[LMNO]

I think you misunderstood something.

You're saying that because you can't subjectively experience it, there's no way to prove it.  The whole point of modern physics, starting with Einstein and going all the way to (in this case) Everett, is to remove the subjective observer from the equations.  It doesn't matter if an observer can or cannot detect multiple worlds.

Secondly,

In the case of many worlds you'd have to contrast it with non-reality many worlds, also undetectable as they lack substance.

This is not true.  They do not lack substance, they are unobservable to a person in this universe.  Just as a person in another universe would be unable to percieve you.

And again, you're basing your idea on subjective principles.  You don't have to detect something for it to exist.

Reference point are pre-Einstein.  Get with the program.

[Ambassador KAOS]

post a link, be a mentor.

[LMNO]

I'll do you one better.

Check your email.