This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Mods Please Lock
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Ah, parallel universes are a different area of philosophy, and one that I unfortunately have very little knowledge of. But at the risk of sounding philosophically apathetic, what's the point? If we 'travel back in time' and enter a parallel universe, then we simply cease to exist from this universe.
But what metaphysical basis would there be to create a separate parallel universe every time someone tried to go back in time, presuming the technology was available to do so?
And certainly, there's no reason why things would suddenly go back to normal, Back to the Future style. The butterfly effect would take care of that - it'd be impossible to make things exactly the same way.
This doesn't make the butterfly effect any less valid though - yes, maybe the butterfly flapped its wings because of some previous determinism. But maybe not - maybe it's just like the drink stirring thing. I think Chaos theory is more appropriate as a mix of determinism and randomness. The Butterfly flapping its wings can change everything, causing a chain reaction - even though that, itself, isn't determined. And is simply random.
You can't have randomness in a causal system, otherwise a random event will occur without cause. Determinism does not assume cause and effect - things can be predetermined, fated, without there being a physical cause (eg, God preordained something will happen). The butterfly effect presupposes a cause and effect relationship, something can't just 'happen' because it was fated to.
And on that note, I've done my bit for tonight :) Be back later.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
@Gore: if parallel universes exist then every possible parallel universe must exist, making hypothesizing about them meaningless.
@dragon: stirring your drink does have effects. Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Every action has an effect.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
@Gore: if parallel universes exist then every possible parallel universe must exist, making hypothesizing about them meaningless.
I would have to find the name of the 'scientific/philosophical documentary' that I watched a little while ago, but with the view they were using, there was a parallel universe created for every choice that an individual
didn't
make. Every choice they
did
make stayed within our universe.
Exactly...'every possible universe'
Also you're have to extrapolate. Each possible outcome in all the parallel universes also births another one.
Post by
Squishalot
@Gore: if parallel universes exist then every possible parallel universe must exist, making hypothesizing about them meaningless.
I would have to find the name of the 'scientific/philosophical documentary' that I watched a little while ago, but with the view they were using, there was a parallel universe created for every choice that an individual
didn't
make. Every choice they
did
make stayed within our universe.
Exactly...'every possible universe'
Also you're have to extrapolate. Each possible outcome in all the parallel universes also births another one.
Mmhmm. Imagine if there were only a million possible combinations of actions that everything in the universe could take in a particular second. There would need to be a million parallel universes created in that second.
In the following second, each of those million parallel universes would create another million parallel universes, and so on.
So over the course of just one year, using only a million possible different actions per second, you would have 10 ^ (6 * 31,536,000) or 10^(189,216,000) parallel universes. And growing. And this assumes that there are only a paltry million different combinations of actions possible at any point in time, and that actions are only taken every second.
Of course, in a deterministic universe ruled by cause-and-effect, how can anyone act any differently from what they're going to do anyway? After all, with all the causes in history, there can only be one single consequent effect, so there is no 'choice' not to be made.
Well, I see what you're getting at, but who says a system has to be either completely causal or completely random? Can't some extremely minor events just BE random? Not every single event has to have a thousand others driving it.
Can you imagine a universe where when you try to boil your water, it randomly blows up your kettle instead?
Randomness has no place in a cause-and-effect universe. This is why quantum theory is a load of garbage, and why it's highly likely there are a series of undiscovered variables that will quantify 'quantum randomness'.
Also - the butterfly effect doesn't have to apply in every situation, I don't think.
That's because you don't fully understand what the butterfly effect is. The butterfly effect is simply "let's change X = 1 to X = 2 and see what happens". It cannot actually occur in real life. See the section Gorefiend quoted from my post at the top of this page.
But take a look at the cracked article written in the first page - it proves that the butterfly effect has occurred multiple times in history, causing catastrophic events.
The cracked article demonstrates that there were a series of seemingly unconnected events that led to big events in history. It doesn't 'prove' a butterfly effect occured, because a butterfly effect cannot 'occur' in real life, because, by definition, it is a simulation, a prediction of the future, of what would happen by changing the present or past.
Using the first one as an example, the sandwich. Sure, there were probably other factors that led up to him getting the sandwich. and there are many other factors, that, combined with the sandwich, led to world war II, etc. Now, there were very tense relations among European countries at the time, so even without the sandwich, it's likely some war would have broken out - but it wouldn't have been the same, and the entire world today would be changd.
Your hypothesising is the butterfly effect at work - 'what would happen if he hadn't got the sandwich?'.
That he had a sandwich is a causal effect of him being hungry and him going to a cafe that he liked. Why is it the sandwich that is the 'butterfly effect' in your mind, and not his hunger, or the clueless driver, or the dodgy grenade, or anything else?
All of those things are simply events and causal reactions to preceding events. The 'butterfly effect' is the difference in history that you're imagining when you say "well, what if he wasn't actually assasinated?" Not the history that has actually occured.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Dragon fails
rhymes with dragon tales.
Post by
Orranis
@Gore: if parallel universes exist then every possible parallel universe must exist, making hypothesizing about them meaningless.
I would have to find the name of the 'scientific/philosophical documentary' that I watched a little while ago, but with the view they were using, there was a parallel universe created for every choice that an individual
didn't
make. Every choice they
did
make stayed within our universe.
Exactly...'every possible universe'
Also you're have to extrapolate. Each possible outcome in all the parallel universes also births another one.
Mmhmm. Imagine if there were only a million possible combinations of actions that everything in the universe could take in a particular second. There would need to be a million parallel universes created in that second.
In the following second, each of those million parallel universes would create another million parallel universes, and so on.
So over the course of just one year, using only a million possible different actions per second, you would have 10 ^ (6 * 31,536,000) or 10^(189,216,000) parallel universes. And growing. And this assumes that there are only a paltry million different combinations of actions possible at any point in time, and that actions are only taken every second.
Of course, in a deterministic universe ruled by cause-and-effect, how can anyone act any differently from what they're going to do anyway? After all, with all the causes in history, there can only be one single consequent effect, so there is no 'choice' not to be made.
Well, I see what you're getting at, but who says a system has to be either completely causal or completely random? Can't some extremely minor events just BE random? Not every single event has to have a thousand others driving it.
Can you imagine a universe where when you try to boil your water, it randomly blows up your kettle instead?
Randomness has no place in a cause-and-effect universe. This is why quantum theory is a load of garbage, and why it's highly likely there are a series of undiscovered variables that will quantify 'quantum randomness'.
Also - the butterfly effect doesn't have to apply in every situation, I don't think.
That's because you don't fully understand what the butterfly effect is. The butterfly effect is simply "let's change X = 1 to X = 2 and see what happens". It cannot actually occur in real life. See the section Gorefiend quoted from my post at the top of this page.
But take a look at the cracked article written in the first page - it proves that the butterfly effect has occurred multiple times in history, causing catastrophic events.
The cracked article demonstrates that there were a series of seemingly unconnected events that led to big events in history. It doesn't 'prove' a butterfly effect occured, because a butterfly effect cannot 'occur' in real life, because, by definition, it is a simulation, a prediction of the future, of what would happen by changing the present or past.
Using the first one as an example, the sandwich. Sure, there were probably other factors that led up to him getting the sandwich. and there are many other factors, that, combined with the sandwich, led to world war II, etc. Now, there were very tense relations among European countries at the time, so even without the sandwich, it's likely some war would have broken out - but it wouldn't have been the same, and the entire world today would be changd.
Your hypothesising is the butterfly effect at work - 'what would happen if he hadn't got the sandwich?'.
That he had a sandwich is a causal effect of him being hungry and him going to a cafe that he liked. Why is it the sandwich that is the 'butterfly effect' in your mind, and not his hunger, or the clueless driver, or the dodgy grenade, or anything else?
All of those things are simply events and causal reactions to preceding events. The 'butterfly effect' is the difference in history that you're imagining when you say "well, what if he wasn't actually assasinated?" Not the history that has actually occured.
I guess I made a mistake in thinking you actually understood the topic. farewell.
Your an idiot.
On a second note, I completely agree with you Hyper. For every input, there can be only one output. Butterfly theory is taking a previous input and changing it, then observing how the output changes.
Example: Equation y = 2x.
So let's say in real history, x = 1.
Then in real history, the outcome was 2 * 1, which is 2.
Butterfly theory is going, "What if x equaled 2?"
So by the equation, if x=2, then 4 would have happened.
Edit: Hyper's small text is "Rhymes with Dragon Tales."
Edit 2: Btw, I love your signature Hyper.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And I thought only MyTie/his associates were this imbecilic.
Careful with the big words; they do enjoy coming back to bite one in the nether regions.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I should really stopfeeding the trolls.
You should really use the space bar more often.
Post by
392412
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Your
an idiot.
Need I say more?
i was gonna point that out, but it seemed too easy.
So says the guy who doesn't capitalize
I
nor the first word of his sentence...
at the same time!
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Of course, in a deterministic universe ruled by cause-and-effect, how can anyone act any differently from what they're going to do anyway? After all, with all the causes in history, there can only be one single consequent effect, so there is no 'choice' not to be made.
The only problem I see with this so is that you're putting limitations on it. There can only be one single consequent effect,
in our universe
.
He's not put any limitations on anything...he's pointing out what it means to be "deterministic," i.e. there is no such thing as probability or possibility; events just exist because they must. If there are other possible outcomes for an event, the system is no longer deterministic.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
392412
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.