b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 9747189 (Thread)

# I subscribe to the multiverse
theory, so naturally assume everything is bindun, many times over. It's just easier that way.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 15:04, archived)
# That would explain my, near constant, feelings of deja vu!
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 15:07, archived)
# only if you assume that universes are coherent with one-another
which is unwarranted.

of course, your feelings of deja vu might be caused by that particular part of the wavefunctions for our and a seperate universe briefly coming into coherence for a short period.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 15:10, archived)
# or it might be
because I follow her everywhere she goes.

*stalks*
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 15:10, archived)
# much more likely
fundamental physics suffers another blow at the hands if reality.

TAKE THAT, MICHIO KAKU
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 15:11, archived)
# MAKE SENSE LITTLE TRAIN!
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 15:11, archived)
# assume for simplicity we have two universes
one is described by a wavefunction "bindun" and the other by a wavefunction "undone". each wavefunction is an enormously complicated wave that would likely look reminiscent of spiritualised's seminal "ladies and gentlemen, we are floating in space", which is pretty fitting since you can picture these universes as two sheets floating in space.

both wavefunctions are changing extremely rapidly and unpredictably. normally, averaging over a reasonable period (of a few seconds, say) there will be no correlation between universes. at various times, however, one might conjecture that the universes are briefly marching in step. at these times, the wavefunctions are said to be "coherent", and there will be a non-vanishing correlation between them. if the parts of the wavefunction that describe you happen at that moment to be coherent, then you will perhaps experience "bindun" and "undone" at the same time.

and then, since half of you is in an undone state, you will be laughed at by children on the street and in danger of surprise sex.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 15:16, archived)
# Schmerg, schmerg, schmerg, schmerg, schmerg..
I think my brain just wee'd itself.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 15:18, archived)
# My work here is done
I'm now off to have tea with a friend who did her Masters in, coincidentally, string theory. Which involves picking random bits of the "string landscape" and seeing if they could be our universe. (No, they couldn't. But your likelihood of finding a bit of the landscape that contains our universe is roughly 1 part in 100000000000000000000.....0000000. There's between 100 and 500 zeroes there.)
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 15:20, archived)
# I hate numbers.
Numbers are well gay.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 16:01, archived)
# But what if ours is the only universe where any form of life has come into existence?

(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 15:12, archived)
# in any sensible multiverse theory
this would be impossible. the quantum multiverse theory assumes that at each time every possible outcome of a measurement holds, each in a separate universe. the horrific flaunting of conservation of energy that would result apparently does not concern people who believe this stupid idea -- which was proposed by e from the eels' dad.

in a more abstract model it's entirely possible this is the only universe we're in. in that case there's some pretty piss-boring branes floating near to us, fucking with cosmologist's heads and making us believe in dark matter.

in a real-world model, it's all bullshit and this universe is all we have.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 15:19, archived)