this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
566 points (92.5% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26772 readers
5446 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
566
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

I can hear this post in their voices. Maybe I’ve seen the movie too many times…nah

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Natural numbers doesn't contain 2.5 because we define it so. Similarly all those CDs are practically the same because it's made in a factory designed to minimize the variance. Is there a similar strong will or intention in how a multiverse evolves?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's an analogy, the specific case doesn't matter. It demonstrates that infinite does not mean literally everything, it's possible for some item to be missing from any particular infinite set. In a box of infinite apples you won't have an orange; in a box of infinite fruit you won't have a chicken; in an infinite multiverse you by definition won't have a universe which isn't part of that multiverse.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Ya, but OP was talking about what's the "most likely" scenario. Which I don't think the selected analogy demonstrated.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I suppose then you’d have been more satisfied with the example of an infinite number of grains of sand, each polished smooth and strewn across an infinite beach.

Or simply an infinite expanse of empty space, each with unique coordinates, yet unable to be differentiated in the absence of any reference.

The point being, infinity itself is a concept we defined a certain way. And no part of that definition mandates variation. People who hear “infinity” and immediately conclude that, in one universe they are a singer, and in another they are an astronaut, and in another still they weren’t born at all, etc., are making an incorrect assumption about the nature of infinity itself.

Framed another way, we have exactly one example of a possible universe. Tell me, what creative force do you believe in which would intervene to ensure other universes play out differently?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think a creative force is required to ensure other universes play out similarly, not the other way around. Things naturally spread out randomly instead of unified, variances accumulate to cause chaos instead of order. Similar to how the overall entropy always increase.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We have reached the root of the disagreement.

Do things naturally spread out randomly? Given the same hand reaching into the same lottery box, does some inherent law of the universe guarantee that the number drawn is totally unpredictable?

Given our predicament of having limited information, and limited capacity for understanding, I agree that statistical models are some of the best tools we have, and a very practical way of navigating the world. Many things are effectively random to us, after all. We cannot hope to comprehend every variable at play when all of the numbers cascaded into the bucket.

But how random is it really? The electrical signals firing in your brain are as random and quantum as we could possibly imagine, yet somehow, you experience a single continuous consciousness, waking up as yourself morning after morning. How could that be possible if cause-and-effect were superseded by some principle of inherent chaos? Do you propose this randomness is merely too subtle to detect? In that case, it would be unfalsifiable, leaving us forced to conclude that the hand always draws the same number.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Things can be random and chaotic but if the effects are slow enough then we can still find order in a short period. Evolution is randomness + natural selection but it happens over such a long period we can't really feel it. Yet we are affected by and products of evolution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Once again, we model genetic variation as being “random” because we cannot currently predict it accurately, but in truth it’s no different than the lottery. You have quite the task ahead of you if you intend to prove it is necessarily and totally chaotic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If things are usually "seemingly random" to us it would imply the multiverse would also be "seemingly random" to us. I don't see the need to prove the chaotic to be truly, whatever that means.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, if you don’t care about proving anything, and you simply believe your assumptions are facts, then why are you discussing it with me? Please continue to think whatever you wish, just as I will continue to remain unconvinced by your gut instinct on this topic

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Likewise I'm not convinced that I'm the one who needs to provide proofs in this discussion. You already said that "we" model genetic variation as being “random”. And the model is working great. Therefore it is only reasonable to assume things work according to the model unless proved otherwise. A model doesn't need to be 100% correct to make correct predictions. We still use Newton's physics model to predict things (flawlessly) even tho it's not a "truly" correct model.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Um, sorry to say friend, but Newton’s laws are actually just approximations. This is the entire basis of the emergence of quantum theory.

This perfectly illustrates the error in your thought process. You live life assuming that whatever pops into your head is the truth. Well, look where that’s led you, you actually believe physics has not improved since the 17th century.

I’ll give you a hint: scientists do not simply write “this seems reasonable to me, therefore I feel no need to prove it” underneath their theorems. You made a claim, and you need to provide evidence if you expect to be taken seriously

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you read my comment? I'm aware that Newton's model is not correct. My point was that it still predict flawlessly in most cases.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whatever you say friend, enjoy your flawless yet incorrect predictions then, whatever that means

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It means it doesn't predict correctly in quantum physics but still predicts correctly in 90% of other cases such as motions and thermodynamics in daily scales. Why do you think schools still teach those if it's not useful?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It’s taught because it’s a convenient way to teach children the scientific method, and has some practical benefit in low stakes problem solving. Those who progress beyond the basics realize there is more to physics than predicting the final destination of a billiards ball in a perfectly frictionless vacuum.

Although if you want to believe everything you learned in high school is the Truth with a capital T then you do you. Explains a lot actually

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Is there a similar strong will or intention in how a multiverse evolves?

Well, if we're talking about the many worlds theorem, then probably yeah, because both worlds came from a common starting point and evolve together. Like, imagine that I flip 100 quantum coins, creating 2^100 (1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376) universes in a multiverse. Every universe will be different, but the vast majority of them will have roughly 50 heads and roughly 50 tails. 7% of them will even have exactly 50 heads. There is one universe where every coin flip lands on heads, but it's only one universe among nonillions, you could spend your entire life searching universes and never find it. None of the universes are the same, but most of them are so boringly similar that you couldn't tell them apart. It's the central limit theorem, that lots of random events trend towards uniformity

nobody really knows, but if I had to guess I'd say that's probably the way our universe would be, our universe might technically be different from the one next to it, but it would only be different by a single electron on mars that decided to move an atom to the left. There might be a universe somewhere where all of the particles in a lotto wheel quantum tunnel to make the winning number be your number, but it would be outnumbered an infinity to one by universes where that didn't happen and it looks exactly the same as ours.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That's true when you only looks at the point of start or point of differ. In each of the universe other random events will keep happening and the accumulate of variances would have chaotic effects.