/jp/ - Otaku Culture

Yes because I have autism

>Kakera
Stop that.

are kakera just alternate universes?..

>>5650704
Basically, and the Voyager Witches have the ability to travel between them.

Is there a kakera where Touhou is real? ;_;

>>5650708
And the best thing they can do is recreating silly scenes of a dysfunctional family?
Wow.
AND GOD DECIDED THAT EVERY BOB IN THE MULTIVERSE WOULD HIT A DOOR'S ANGLE WITH THEIR TOE

It makes me jealous.

I want to break through this kakera, invade happy-me's, strangle him for taking all my luck all my life, and then take his life.

Oh, and I may or may not perform an act of ritualistic cannibalism on him.

I will EAT him, and therefore BECOME him, even though I already AM him! My madness holds no boundaries in this universe or his.

>>5650627
If there truly are infinite universes, then there must also be ones in which you are suffering far more than you are now. In fact, there would be infinite of them. Also, infinitely many where you are exactly as you are now. It is clear that if there are infinitely many universes, than all your choices and experiences are meaningless, since they were bound to happen in some universe or another. In short, all your life is just one cosmic roll of the dice.

Of course, that's probably true regardless of whether there is more than one universe or not. Also, no afterlife. Suck it up, chum. If you don't like it, change the circumstances. It isn't nearly as difficult to change oneself as you might believe, if you truly wish to change.

I often wonder if there is another universe where I'm a little girl.

>>5650749

>Also, no afterlife. Suck it up, chum.

There must be a universe where there IS an afterlife.

Infinity is infinity is infinity is infinity. Everything and every thing and every-thing is and forever shall be.

>>5650749
>It isn't nearly as difficult to change oneself as you might believe, if you truly wish to change.
Becoming a little girl is pretty difficult tho

>>5650776

Infinity can still have limits.

There is an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2.
Even with that infinity, you will never achieve 3.

>>5650797

You'd only have to assume that limit exists, though. Parallel universes would be beyond an event horizon, so logic and reason are null and void in the first place as they can never, ever be observed.

>>5650841

That is to say, the multiple universes are quite possibly singularities where the rules cease to be and you could very well put 3 between 1 and 2.

>>5650841

One would assume that by definition logic would work everywhere, alternate universes would simply have differing axioms to derive from.

Also, in this discussion, we are imposing limits: we are assuming that there are an infinite amount of universes where we exist, hence the limit is 'there need to be conditions capable of sustaining life that are sufficiently similar to our own to the extent we can intimately relate with a single one of those lifeforms'.

>>5650851

That is to say, no matter where you go in any universe, at one instantaneous moment no value will ever fall between two other values that are both smaller than itself.
Intrinsic logic.

>>5650797
>>5650841
>>5650851
But what evidence or logic leads you to believe all universes are possible? I could have an infinitely large bag of marbles, but if all marbles are only red or blue, I will never pull a green one out of the bag. Even if I draw infinite marbles.

Furthermore, suppose there are uncountably infinite possible universes, but only countably infinite universes. Again, not all universes then necessarily exist.

All this shows is that even if there were infinitely many universes, which is highly uncertain, there would be no guarantee that all possibilities would be represented in that set.

To drive the point home AGAIN, the set of integers is infinite in both directions with infinitely many unique elements. Yet it hardly contains all numbers.

>>5650851
If there are infinite universes with infinite me's and illogical rules, how do I know which one I'm in. I think I'm in a normal, boring universe, but those memories could be faked. How do I determine if they're faked? If there are an infinite number of universes where they are fake, and an infinite number where they aren't and logic doesn't always have to apply, what do I do? It doesn't compute, values undefined!

>>5650887

You cannot use the number-line definition of infinity when describing a set, such as all universes.
You have to use the aleph numbers.

>>5650893

Okay, you shut up.

Read some Hume, etc.

This discussion is about the benefits to us, so if we perceive a normal boring life it might as well be one.

>>5650627
If there is other dimensions I can guess that I am either in a jail, dead or in a mental ward.
I cannot see myself in a "happy" world. There is no such a thing. You are only happy when you want to be happy and I can't get get rid of this feeling that there is something greater that enjoy bullying me.

>>5650880

>That is to say, no matter where you go in any universe, at one instantaneous moment no value will ever fall between two other values that are both smaller than itself.

Nope. 2 is greater than 3, and nothing would be able to be said to the contrary.

>Intrinsic logic.

Logic is destroyed in a singularity. Inertia and thermodynamics no longer need to apply, nor do laws of conservation. "What is true" in a singularity is entirely dependent upon how physics operates within it, and indeed if "physics" operates at all in any recognizable method.

>One would assume that by definition logic would work everywhere, alternate universes would simply have differing axioms to derive from.

Well, through this, yes. It would mean BY OUR RELATIVE LOGIC that the alternate universe is incorrect, but BY ITS OWN LOGIC that our universe is incorrect.
Which is why that event horizon is there and why it's an event horizon in the first place. Contradictory universes simply cannot interact.

>>5650926


See >>5650866:
>Also, in this discussion, we are imposing limits: we are assuming that there are an infinite amount of universes where we exist, hence the limit is 'there need to be conditions capable of sustaining life that are sufficiently similar to our own to the extent we can intimately relate with a single one of those lifeforms'.

For the purposes of this discussion, a similar (likely identical) logic to ours will need to exist in any relevant universes at the very least.

>>5650887
>>5650926
This is all fine and dandy but how can I become THIS?>>5650708

>>5650987

You can't.

>>5650993
;_;

>>5650975

>For the purposes of this discussion, a similar (likely identical) logic to ours will need to exist in any relevant universes at the very least.

Aren't we assuming the infinite multiverse? Wherein there's an infinite amount of every infinite variation.
So there's an infinite amount of universes with every possible altercation, as well as an infinite amount of completely identical universes.

>>5650987
Reject the notion of a properly defined physical reality. Reality has no definition other than what you perceive, since nothing other than your current perceptions are known to exist, and determining objective information about anything else is impossible. If you believe this down to the deepest subconscious level, and are able to modify your sensory input, this will then modify reality. At least that's how I think Bern and Lambda did it, and I too wish to become a voyager.

>>5650866

That's correct. A Syllogistic Fallacy is a Syllogistic Fallacy no matter where it occurs. Logic is, essentially, constant.

However, afterlife isn't really related to "logic". As a concept, it's not really internally inconsistant.

Most fantastical things are just to do with a different, exotic set of physics rather than openly defying logic. Of course, most organised religion has a text that is an exception to this.

With the afterlife too, nobody knows the nature of consciousness to begin with. At least with concepts like the Christian god, we can look at the world and say how unlikely it looks. But given we don't know exactly what that final point of consciousness works, it's silly to say logic rules out the possibility of a set of rules, somewhere, allowing for an after life.

>>5651009
>So there's an infinite amount of universes with every possible altercation, as well as an infinite amount of completely identical universes.

This is what makes me doubt the "infinite universes" thing. It just seems so redundant. Maybe a vast number, but not infinite. It'd loop back on itself eventually so it might appear infinite, just like our current universe.

/jp/- science/religion

>>5650915
You seem to be a glass-half-empty kind of guy. Follow >>5650749's advice and defy the fate you have previously resigned yourself to!