Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Tigger KC]

We need Dr Cem on this theory  I cant see why its not infinite . There has to be another planet where life forms such as ourselves live . Wouldn't it be great to find another planet with human inhabitants 

Yeah. We could send all the asylum seekers there.

No it would be the other way round and they'd send us theirs. 

Well....Commander Farage would man his battlestar and vaporise them all. 

While Space Cadets Sturgeon and Corbyn looked on and wrung their hands! 

[Gaffers]

I am watching it and i dont believe it for 2 reasons:

1. All the arguments about the splitting of a universe seem to be based on human choices which means that the old argument of free will is compromised as well as suggesting that before free will and conscious decision making existed there cold only be one existence and all life prior to that was based on the rules of biology and physics which are constant.

2. The concept of creating mass out of nothing doesn't hold up to me.  While i don't disagree that we have created the conditions for a particle to exist in 2 places at the samme time, k think that we have construed the wrong conclusion from it.  What is the right one i dont know.

I am usually a very open minded person but this seems like a conclusion of convenience rather than anything quantifiable.

[STEMO]

I wouldn't even go deep enough to give it that much creedence, Matt. It was simply the ramblings of imagination, nothing more. Not one iota of proof, or even plausibility. I could invent a theory tonight and present it in such a way as to be possible.
It's a bit like that old chestnut religion. While it can't be proved or disproved, it must be possible. Thats the premise these people work on, and get paid for.

If you like this kind of nonsense, read Terry Pratchett.

[trevken]

Hello all!

I signed up to this site just to comment about this crazy BBC Horizon episode. (I can usually be found on the Ford Owners Club. http://www.fordownersclub.com/forums/user/68308-trevken/ )

Monsieur Guffer & STEMO, you are completely correct. Not one shred of evidence, even though she said it was becoming self evident.

The quantum computer bit was interesting but out of date I think. The latest quantum computers can process "best route" type computations slightly more efficiently than a normal computer processor, but nothing of significance yet.

I personally think there may be some truth, but only in the quantum level and they are jumping to conclusions because of these quantum phenomena. Similar to the psudo scientists that jump to magical conclusions because of the implications of quantum realm.

Ironically, one of the biggest reasons for scientist insisting that multiverses "need" to exits is because the only other explanation for having a universe with exactly the right physical properties and laws for us to exist is to say that there is a god that made it that way.

Therefore there must be infinite universes that exist and we're just lucky enough to be in the once capable of creating planets of stable mass, supporting life in the goldilocks zone.

Monsieur, spot on with point 1... I'd like to ask that guy if he believes in free will or a deterministic one, and if so is that the necessary ingredient for branching off a new reality. If so, what level consciousness can do this, a human only, primate, or can a microbe's choice also do this?? It is almost laughable.

[Rods2]

I am watching it and i dont believe it for 2 reasons:

1. All the arguments about the splitting of a universe seem to be based on human choices which means that the old argument of free will is compromised as well as suggesting that before free will and conscious decision making existed there cold only be one existence and all life prior to that was based on the rules of biology and physics which are constant.

2. The concept of creating mass out of nothing doesn't hold up to me.  While i don't disagree that we have created the conditions for a particle to exist in 2 places at the samme time, k think that we have construed the wrong conclusion from it.  What is the right one i dont know.

I am usually a very open minded person but this seems like a conclusion of convenience rather than anything quantifiable.

Where did the material for big bang come from?

Matter and anti-matter is created all the time and you get characteristic emissions where this happens in a vacuum. What is not known is why there appears to be more matter than anti-matter in the universe.

Make the most of now, as we are after 13.2 billion years through about half the energy created by big bang and in another 13 billion years the universe will be cold and dark where entropy has won.

STMO and Lord Opti are on a half-time break and looking forward to the second 13 billion years.

[Gaffers]

Where did the material for big bang come from?

Matter and anti-matter is created all the time and you get characteristic emissions where this happens in a vacuum. What is not known is why there appears to be more matter than anti-matter in the universe.

Make the most of now, as we are after 13.2 billion years through about half the energy created by big bang and in another 13 billion years the universe will be cold and dark where entropy has won.

STMO and Lord Opti are on a half-time break and looking forward to the second 13 billion years.

I have no problem with the BBT, creation of matter and anti-matter etc.  But I do not believe that you can just create an exact copy of arrangement, alignment and movement for every single atom, infinitely from nothing.  You would also in theory have to duplicate the energy applied to all the mass in every new universe in exactly the same way. As we know energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed.  So if we lived in this multiverse then each incarnation would have to share energy with the last, and so on for infinity....it just doesn't work.

[trevken]

Where did the material for big bang come from?

Matter and anti-matter is created all the time and you get characteristic emissions where this happens in a vacuum. What is not known is why there appears to be more matter than anti-matter in the universe.

Make the most of now, as we are after 13.2 billion years through about half the energy created by big bang and in another 13 billion years the universe will be cold and dark where entropy has won.

STMO and Lord Opti are on a half-time break and looking forward to the second 13 billion years.

I have no problem with the BBT, creation of matter and anti-matter etc.  But I do not believe that you can just create an exact copy of arrangement, alignment and movement for every single atom, infinitely from nothing.  You would also in theory have to duplicate the energy applied to all the mass in every new universe in exactly the same way. As we know energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed.  So if we lived in this multiverse then each incarnation would have to share energy with the last, and so on for infinity....it just doesn't work.

Exactly, plus all of the other infinite time-lines of possible choices that were made in every instance or millisecond in history that a "choice" was offered (to who???). I don't think this person has seen Back to the Future and appreciates the butterfly effect

I say a big fat no to the theory that giving a monkey a typewriter an infinite amount of times guarantees that the complete works of Shakespeare will be written eventually.

This type of mathematical reasoning seems blinded by numbers.

I say his sums are off anyway. He said he calculated a finite amount of possible arrangement of atoms that the universe could be arranged. But that totally ignores the 4th dimension of time. That would then multiply that number by an infinite amount of timelines making it no longer a finite number.

Where the opps are you going to store all of this information and mass??

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

42.

[trevken]

42.

Winner!

Now we just need to know the question.

[STEMO]

42.

Winner!

Now we just need to know the question.

It's earlier in another thread.

[STEMO]

My question...42? Was to Opti in another thread. His answer, in this thread, is merely the answer to life, the universe and everything. Clear?

[Gaffers]

 

[Rods2]

42.

In this or another universe?

[Gaffers]

42.

In this or another universe?

If you get this, I will be very impressed 

[bigegg]

I had a drunken discussion about this a couple of weeks ago...

the worrying bit was that the conclusion we cam to was valid when I was sober:

God-botherer's agree that GOD is infinite. An infinite God infers an infinite universe, otherwise there is no room for Him - therefore the universe is infinite.
Aethiest heathen scientists agree that that the universe is INFINITE.

INFINITY is huge - and then some. Infinity implies that every possible occurence happens, and also DOESN'T happen at the same time.[1]

In an infinite universe, there is room for an infinite number of omniscient,omnipotent,omibevelont gods. and ALSO an infinite number of NO GOD AT ALL!

so every single religion, and non-religion, and quasi-religion, and omni-religion, and pan-religion is true...

[1] if a tree falls in a forest so far away it doesn't impact upon you *at all*, then you didn't hear it, and it migh as well not have happened - same with god!