/sci/ - Science & Math

but I don't want to wait... for our lives to be over

Ostensibly, the reply to this is that every universe in the multiverse only contains things which are possible. God is impossible, therefore He doesn't exist in any universe.

I'm not sure if this is 100% correct but its what I've heard before. I'm not sure I buy it, but I'm just saying. Also, a lot of folks think the many-worlds thing is a load of BS

troll spotted!!! DIVE DIVE DIVE!!! (also sage)

>>1151716
>Femanon here

You know the rules, and so do I.

No.

>Many timelines blah blah blah

>In one such universe, the invisible pink unicorn exists. Being omnipotent, she can easily cross over to all other universes, including our own.

>The IPU is as real as the hangover you had after that drunken orgy with a transvestite last sunday.

>>1151733
if fucking pokemon can exist, then fucking allah can exist.

/thread

>>1151776
Most of the many-worlds people would say that pokemon are impossible too. In fact, as far as I can tell nobody's been very specific on what exactly is in those other universes, all they are is very sure that anything fictional mankind has ever made cannot possibly be in any of them, no matter how many there are.

If there are infinite universes, in one an all-powerful god-slaying machine came into being. It can cross easily into every universe and slay gods.
Therefore all gods are dead.

>>1151790
but that would mean they existed in the first place

I'm going to ignore the crap about Allah, as you all should too, and point out that the many-worlds interpretation has a hard time explaining why some outcomes are observably more likely than others if they all happen in some branch of the wavefunction. You can easily modify many-worlds to provide such explanation, but such modifications typically undermine the elegance, symmetry, and non-ad-hockery of the original idea. Furthermore, if we're going to take some formulation of quantum mechanics literally, we can do better than the Schrodinger-picture, which assigns a special role to time, which fucks up Lorentz invariance if you claim the Schrodinger-picture state vector actually exists. The symmetry breaking isn't observable, but it's there, and if I were willing to part with Lorentz symmetry, then fuck, I'd be a Bohmian already.

>>1151813
No, that means that their existence existed once. But the God-Slaying machine destroyed their whole existence from the beginning to the end.

>>1151787
I'm not properly educated in theoretical physics, but everything i've ever read states that "every possibility is possible" i guess this could be just semantics. possibility meaning literally anything that's actually possible IRL

>>1151908
so the god slayer replaced god...what's the difference between god, and a god-slayer. Apart from the fact that one is more badass than the other.

>>1151928
God Slaying machine is good and cares nothing about anything but destroying gods and can do nothing else but destroy gods.

Gods... don't exist.

>>1151943
But in another universe a god created an anti-God-slaying-machine and eliminated the God-slaying machine from existence.

What then?

Gods were once powerful beings from a) a distant galaxy,
b)another dimension, and c) us from the future

Allah has a history so he doesn't exist. Also, the multiple universes theory doesn't say that anything is possible, it says that different laws of physics may exist.

>>1152045
>>Allah has a history so he doesn't exist

wait, how so? Not trolling or anything, I'm genuinely curious as to how having a history means something can't exist (>>1151733 here, for the record)

>>1151993
No, the God-Slaying machine is especially made to slay gods, so it is immune to such meddling. Besides, even if it worked, the God-Slaying machine would then create an Anti-God-Slaying-Machine-Slaying machine.

This sounds kinda like the Ontological argument.

Which, as strange as it seems on the outside, and at first glance, is actually an interesting argument. I believe there are others that are much better, but none the less. It's much easier to say the Ontological argument is false than to actually find a fallacy. Kant might have done it, though.

>>1152081
But then someone makes an Anti-Anti-God-Slaying-Machine-Slaying machine. What then?

ManyWorld interpretation only allows for universes that are possible to exist. Beings that can cross into other universes are not possible. Pokemon-like creatures are possible-ish.

Alternately, there exists in an infinite number of universes a god-killing being that can kill Allah.

Also, that a being hasn't crossed into our universe and made contact with us shows through induction that OP's proof is incorrect.

>>1152122
The Anti-Meddling protocol will go into effect and reset.

holographic universe, self-aware recursive wavefunction, etc.

everything is one. /sci/ isn't the best place to have this discussion, but our human drive to differentiate between things on the macroscopic level belies the true nature of what is.

you are god as much as the blade of grass on the lawn outside my window is god as much as a hydrogen atom in betelgeuse is god as much as the surface of the entirety of our universe is god.

do not limit yourself thinking in such localized ways.

>>1152127
>>Beings that can cross into other universes are not possible

Why not?

Genuinely not trolling here again, I'm wondering why it wouldn't be possible to cross over from one universe to another. There are a lot of scifi stories about that, aren't there? Look at the evil goatee guys from Star Trek.

>>1152136
But in one universe they've created an Anti-Anti meddling protocol that defeats it. What then? D:

>>1152155
reset

>>1152155
>a lot of scifi stories
>scifi = science FICTION


while i agree on your stance, your example is godawful

>>1152170
I know, I know, I'm just genuinely wondering why it would be impossible. Just looking at it, a being/beings which could cross over to other universes doesn't seem self-evidently impossible.

Troll ~ 6/10

1 because you're funny
5 because femanon potential

... but even in /sci/

Tits or GTFO

I hate this thread and I wish I could sage harder.

>>1152122

What if god made a god slaying machine that was 100% effective?

>>1152232
what if there was a god 100% immune to god slaying machines?

>>1152232

God would be an hero. Just like Jesus.

>>1152155
Superposition principle.

>>1152236

Then that god didn't make the 100% effective god slaying machine, but, since that god didn't create something that another god made then he isn't the true god be the true god made everything, including a 100% effective god slaying machine.

>>1152185
If what OP said was true and everything existed and the impossible was possible, then somewhere would exist a being with the means and will to communicate with every being in every universe, and we would have heard about it. Since we haven't, OP is retarded

>>1152242
Er...superposition principle? Forgive me, I don't really understand that--I looked it up on Wikipedia and don't see what it has to do with alternate universes, but again, I am a layman. Could you explain how it relates to the many worlds theory? pardon my stupidity and newfaggotry.

>>1152155
That poster. If it was possible for creatures to cross dimensions, then we would be able to talk to one right now. That we aren't right now shows that there aren't dimension-crossing creatures, as, with an infinite number of universes, there would be in infinite number of ones that cross universes, and an infinite number in our universe right now, blah blah blah.

Also, multiverse theory only allows for possible universes to exist. An omnipotent being is not possible, nor is, theoretically, one that can cross universes. Violation of entropy or some shit.

>>1152258

But we have! We hear it everyday. You just have to believe or you'll never be able to go to neverland and sustain yourself on imagination alone.

RU-FI- OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

>>1152258
going on the whole 'god-slaying machine' thing though, maybe there exists a device which can foil all forms of inter-universal communication and we've been affected by it.

obviously though the whole thing is starting to get kind of lulzy

universe = god

>>1152270
Again, though, maybe we have talked to universe-crossing creatures before. For all we know alien abductees or whoever have been picked up by inter-dimensional travelers or something. About the violation of entropy thing though, >>1152265
here, does that have something to do with the superposition principle the other poster mentioned?

>>1152276

How dare you use "the concept of the god slaying machine" name in vain.

Thou shalt burn in eternity under the very god slaying machine that brought you life and gave you RU-FI-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>1152276
Cosmic Censor 3: whose department it is to prevent inter-universal pollution.

FFS Learn what QM is people.

The many worlds interpretation of QM allows for all POSSIBLE outcomes of any indeterminate (random) scenario to exist in their own universe. If the odds of a random die role are 1/6 there would be six universes for each possible outcome. There will not be a universe where a 9 came up on the die, or infinity came up, because those are not possible outcomes. MWI allows everything possible to exist, it doesn't make the impossible possible, and omnipotence is not possible.

>>1152296
By that token, though, wouldn't that mean a lot of other gods, like the Greek or Norse ones, would be possible? Zeus, Thor, etc. weren't omnipotent (or omniscient). Maybe they're around somewhere?

If Thor actually existed though, the world would be a lot more fucking metal. DRAAAGOOONNFOOOORRCE

>>1152265
The Schrodinger equation is linear. The different worlds of many-worlds add together to give you the wavefunction of the universe. The superposition principle tells us that they will evolve independently. The most that can happen is that they interfere, which just screws with the probabilities of future events, and even that's very unlikely because the two worlds have to be pretty much identical.

>>1152296

This clears up a lot of things...
except for the god slaying machine/Rufio paradox. Other than that it makes perfect sense. Just please, next time use the GSM/Rufio so that humanity can go to sleep at night without fear of imminent death.

Thank you.

>>1152289
INFINITE number of dimension-crossing creatures. We'd have an infinite amount talking to us right this second.

But also an infinite number of god-killing beings, like said.

It's just better to assume that it's impossible to cross dimensions, lol.

>>1152296
>not possible outcomes
unless the sides of the dice were changed, the white paint suddenly decaying away from three more spots, making it a nine, or decaying in ∞ pattern, making it infinity.

>>1152312
Okay, I can kind of see what you're getting at, but I'm still not sure how that rules out individual beings from one universe from fiddling with another. As you said, each of the many worlds will evolve independently, but hypothetically, how would that prevent an individual being living in one of those worlds from fiddling with another one?

>>1151716

Christfag here,

God doesn't work that way.

Your "allah" would be some kind of entity which can't be omnipotent.

>>1152324
Or to assume the number of god-killers was greater than the number of gods...

>>1152338
wait, let me clear up my post

gods do not exist

>>1152340
They both have an infinite number. Presumably the same amount.

It doesn't matter, though, because it's impossible for a universe to have an all-powerful, all-knowing being inside of it. Unless it is simply a creature made of every piece of matter in the universe. Possible, but whatever.

If many-worlds were right, we would have universes where things like >>1152203 work not because of their design but because of Brownian motion, and where all the air molecules rush to one side of the earth, and where protons, neutrons, and electrons spontaneously form into pokeballs and fall from the sky. And there would be non-omnipotent gods who always got their way within their own universe just by accident. And people spontaneously explode because all the radioactive atoms in their bodies decay at once. Quantum mechanics tells us these things are fantastically unlikely, but not impossible. Raw many-worlds doesn't have a concept of "fantastically unlikely," though, and even the amateur trolls in this thread can see it. If it can happen, it happens. This is the prime reason the interpretation is crap.

>>1152356
Like I said in >>1152311 though that means non-omnipotent gods can exist. I for one look forward to drinking mead with my bros in Valhalla.

>>1152336
If the worlds evolve independently, that means that things in one world can't fiddle with things in another. That's what "evolve independently" means.

>>1152364
https://www.bundy223.net/~andyb/prose/myriad.html

And he ran out of the office shouting, "Bentley, listen! I've got the answer..."
And he stood up slowly and left the office shaking his head. This was the answer, and it wasn't any good. The suicides, murders, casual crimes would continue....
And he suddenly laughed and stood up. Ridiculous! Nobody dies for a philosophical point!...
And he reached for the intercom and told the man who answered to bring him a sandwich and some coffee....
And picked the gun off the newspapers, looked at it for a long moment, then dropped it in the drawer. His hands began to shake. On a world line very close to this one...
And he picked the gun off the newspapers, put it to his head and
fired. The hammer fell on an empty chamber.
fired. The gun jerked up and blasted a hole in the ceiling.
fired. The bullet tore a furrow in his scalp
took off the top of his head.

>>1152381
Okay, I kind of see that. Again, forgive my ignorance as I'm a total layman when it comes to quantum mechanics. I still have a couple more questions though, but if you don't want to deal with them that's okay. I'm just wondering though, are there any books out there you would recommend that would give at least a basic understanding of the Schrodinger equation and the superposition principle? The wikipedia articles naturally aren't doing it for me :( Forgive my new and dumbfaggotry.

7b9582af7275330e74a4b03f0352f84c kindly re move you r ille gal clo ne and give back our dom ain chrisb ear pol e see http:// tinyurl . com / 36wo8m5

>>1152403
>give at least a basic understanding of the Schrodinger equation and the superposition principle?

Basically you are asking how to get a basic understanding of quantum mechanics, and for that you need a quantum mechanics textbook. There's really no such thing as having a conceptual understanding without the math because right now the quantitative predictions of quantum mechanics are all scientists understand. Normally I would recommend Feynman's QED for a conceptual understanding of QM with very little math, but it probably won't help much because what he describes there is the path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics, whereas to understand where the many-worlders are coming from you need the equivalent Schrodinger picture formulation of quantum mechanics.

>>1152338

>>Your "allah" would be some kind of entity which can't be omnipotent.

Neither would be your God. Speaking of which, I have fermented this crazy idea that there are numerous "islands" that are universes. Some of these islands are ruled by "gods" or "God", who actually is a meta-physical version of a demented scientist. One of them creates a world where everyone eventually dies. He claims to be omni-potent and in a sense he (or she, if the being is an anthropomorphic creature) is, because it made this whole place! All his creations are required to worship him, unless he gets very cranky.

Enter >>> our Earth.

>>1152442
A QM textbook, then? Cool, I'll try looking for some. Are there any texts you'd recommend which do a good job of teaching what you termed the Schrodinger picture formulation of quantum mechanics? If not though I can ask around, and if I can't find *anything* I'll give the Feynman book a look. Thanks.

>>1152454
Most QM textbooks start out with the Schrodinger picture. I don't have any specific recommendations, though.

>>1152478
Alright, thanks again.

I do have another question, though, if you're still around. Again, I'm genuinely interested in learning, and not trying to troll you, but out of curiosity, if alternate universes can't interact with one another, the objects in each universe could obviously interact with other objects in there own. So I'm wondering, would it be possible to create an artificial universe within a universe? I remember reading a while back--I forgot where, forgive me--that one theory stated that black holes 'give birth,' in a manner of speaking, to other universe. If some species in some other universe somehow learned to manipulate black holes in their own, could they create little 'pocket universes' they could fiddle around with?

Also (and again, not trolling, genuinely curious here) what about simulations? In this universe, we have "simulated universe" games like Simcity, Simplanet, Populus, etc. where the player takes the role of a God or something like that. In different universes, if the inhabitants of those were to create extremely sophisticated simulation games, so to speak--really really advanced stuff, like 10 million times more advanced than what one can find in the Sims--would those be considered universes of their own, and thus violate the 'nothing in one universe can interact with another' rule? I'm just wondering, since looking at games like SimCity or the Sims I'm curious if there's a limit to how realistic we'll ever be able to make those games. Sorry for the weird questions, like I said, genuinely not trolling here.

>>1152497
>>there own

hehe, meant 'their own' obviously. Sorry about that, in b4 laughingelfman.jpg and other stuff.

>>1152497
Maybe, it's possible, maybe it isn't. But these things don't really have anything to do with the alternate worlds postulated by many-worlds. It's not like there's only one type of hypothetical alternate universe in theoretical physics. The rule that stuff in one world doesn't affect stuff in other worlds just applies to the type of alternate worlds postulated by many-worlds.

>>1152530
Well, okay, thank you very much.

Again, I'm sorry if these questions seem silly, it's just that IMO the many-worlds hypothesis still has some of the problems the OP described, even inadvertently. As you point out, it may be impossible for anything outside of this universe to interfere with ours, but that still leaves the possibility open than *our* universe is actually just a Simcity-esque simulation within someone else's, and it's God/Allah/Thor/Pink Unicorn who owns the copy of the game.

987254ad67f1fe30f2056cf035c6acdf kindly re move you r ille gal clo ne and give back our dom ain chrisb ear pol e see http:// tinyurl . com / 36wo8m5

>>1152388
What the fuck is this shit?

>>1152556
God dammit. Women.... wat is this shit .... Whyyyyy *sigh*

>>1151716
Yeah but who says that a god exists in our universe?

Many worlds dictate everything happens and is possible in any universe.

Which means there may be every god ever conceived in a universe, but not necessarily ours.

Suck it cumdumpster, now go and make me fucking sammich bitch or Ill beat your ass black and blue again.

>>1152596
Not a femanon or whatever. Again, it's just something I've been wondering about after playing a lot of these 'life simulation' games, reading anon's post about how different universes can't interact with each other made me wonder whether or not those sorts of simulations would count as 'universes within universes' in their own way, with the lol God/gods questions that implies. Again, genuinely not trying to troll, just something that came up in my mind over the course of this thread.

If I roll a 6 sided dice infinitely(d6 for you trolls), I'll never roll a 7.

>>1152556
Simulation has nothing to do with QM.. Dude, simulation is always a possibility, regardless of what kind of laws govern our universe.

Enjoy being a brain in a vat.

>>1152606
You seem like the "struggling thinker" type.. You're interested in deep shit but you don't have the hardware for it.

I suggest a .45 to the head. That or just shut the fuck up.

>>1152635
thanks for the advice, but I think I'll decline. By all means feel free to ignore my posts if they're that stupid, though.

>>1152328
are you willingly being dense?

he's talking about a mathematical roll of a d6. A practical die has more than six outcomes, but they're still very much so controlled by the laws of physics.

burmp

>>1151713
777cb623b3515ab61c4129c6425f3470 kindly re move you r ille gal clo ne and give back our dom ain chrisb ear pol e see http:// tinyurl . com / 36wo8m5

I LIEK THIS THREAD

dump

>>1152905
thread's dead man, and good thing too

Lrn2many worlds.
Allah is not a contigent possibility in any uniververse.

>>1151716
UNIVERSES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY

And now for the weather.

0 probability times infinity chances does not make a probability of 1.

Many worlds theory merely states the all possible eventualities are played out. (Well not really but it's as simple as I can get it for you) Since a God is fundamentally impossible you can suck my dick.

>>1152971
>>God is fundamentally impossible

besides the 'omnipotence is fundamentally impossible' thing, are there any other reasons God/gods are logically, axiomatically impossible rather than nonexistent based on the paucity of evidence for them?

>>1153007
Depends on what god you're talking about.

A deistic god? No, absolutely not. Other than the "well what created that god?" problem.

The Christian god? There are so many contradictions and inherent problems in there that a 4-year old could point them out...

>>1151716
>In one such universe, Allah-slaying machine exists. Being an omnipotent and omniscient machine, it easily able to crossover to all other universes, including our own.
>Allah is as dead as the bones of your monkey ancestors.

>>1152646
An electronic die could also come up with non-congruous numbers.
Talking about mathematical die... phooey.

>>1153016
So *deism* might be a tenable position? interesting...a lot of the Founding Fathers in the US were deists of sorts, IIRC. thanks anon.

>>1153016
A four year old could point many of them out, I should say.

The most obvious of which is how a loving god could also be an incredibly selfish, egotistical, and hate-filled one.

Also, that an all-knowing being wouldn't have a personality, unlike the god of the Bible, who learns over time and changes his personality greatly during and between the old and new testaments.

>>1153026
Sure, deism is a fine belief, same with pantheism.

As long as you admit that, even if there is a god, it certainly doesn't care about or interact with human affairs in any detectable way.

But for the cause of the Big Bang? Who knows? Certainly not us. There are origins that don't require a god, but a god explanation works too.

>>1153038
sounds cool *hugs*

If you go with infinite realities, everything gets pretty silly pretty quick. While it cannot be excluded, it is impossible to proof, so you could be agnostic about it. As there is no effect on our reality though, it's pretty meaningless to ponder.

>>1151716

That quote is basically completly misrepresented. Its not saying "many worlds QM says there is a world with Allah."

Its trying to illustrate the nature of infinity by representing a range of scenarios which are completly impossible or nonsensical. Because of infinity, they are just as likely to happen as anything else.

That doesnt MEAN you take it literally though, fuck.

You are all forget something.

vv

Everything is possible WITHIN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Pokemon exists in one universe, in the other one, Digimon, in the other one, none (Luckly for everyone).

But God is outside the empirically observable universe, if e exists.

So a god would not be possible.

The fact that you spelled "scientists," "sciientists" just fucked you over in my book. Sorry, Sucka.

>>1156640

wat

>>1151716
>If this theory is ever proven, it will also prove the existence of the Allah. How?

NO IT WOULDNT, YOUR A FUCKING DUMB CUNT FOR EVEN THINKING IT COULD!
GTFO AND GO SUCK COCKS YOU SLUT!

>>1152155
>Why not?

>Genuinely not trolling here again, I'm wondering why it wouldn't be possible to cross over from one universe to another.

What's with people and wanting to cross only the farthest and most difficult thing there is? I say going from planet to planet is pretty similar in many ways (we don't say "from world to world anymore...) except we actually know how to do it so its suddenly not as fun anymore. I'm just saying we might need to accept there isn't anything to "cross" except space (space-time), which is still awesome.

You may not be trolling, but you're dumb as fuck.

If there are an infinte universe then anything that is possible is true in at least 1 universe.

This means that in a different universe different things will be possible than in our universe. (anything that can be concieved could be possible in another universe)

This includes an omnipotent god that can travel between universes. this would mean that an omnipotent god that can travel between universes would exist in every single universe. or would be true in all universes

this means if an omni potent god exists in our universe he exists in all universes, (true in all universes), however if an omnipotent god does not exist in our universe then it doesn't exist in any universe ( false in all universes)

as you cannot prove if an omnipotent god exists or does not exist in our universe, the "many worlds interpretation of QM" does not lead us any closer to proving or disproving the existence of an omnipotent god in our universe regardless of wether or not the "many worlds interpretation of QM"

simple as that, anyone who has done any logic at all knows that the "many worlds interpretation of QM" does not give us any more evidence of the existence of god or not, and anyone who understands the concept of infinite knows that it doesn't mean things that are impossible are possible (e.g. if you flip a coin 'infinite' times then it is both heads and tails, but not an omnipotent god)

>>1156765
>>I'm just saying we might need to accept there isn't anything to "cross" except space (space-time), which is still awesome.

maybe, but you have to admit crossing over into other universes is even more awesome.

>>1156784
it's /sci/

>>1156879

Please applaud this man /sci/
thank you

This one was easy.

0/10

what created the multiverse?

>>1157080
Problem Child 2

Hercules could kick Mohammad's ass anyday

The many worlds interpretation states that there is a universe for every possibility. Allah is not a possibility, as any omniscient omnipotent being by definition includes logical contradictions, therefore there is no universe he exists in.

>>1157080
your mother

oh snap

>>1157120
No they don't

>>1156879

you assume that whatever exists in a universe can spill into other universes, which might not be true

Stephen Wolfram would likely suggest that data can be interpreted that represents "Allah" or any other thing. However, it doesn't mean they will exist as from our understanding.

>>1157132
Can an omnipotent being create a rock that he can't lift?

>Femanon
>Allah and random quantum mysticism
>implying this is not a troll

No.
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

>>1151716
CUNT YOU ARE A TROLL OR DUMB AS FUCK!

0/10

>woman on /sci/
>religionfag

Double hate and double troll.

>>1157144

actually I'm using the op's logic tol show what she stated/referenced is false, I dont have to show something that is true, all i need to do is find a contradiction/flaw within the op's logic, she was refering to an omnipotent god and she was assuming that an omnipotent god can travel between worlds, so in the arguement I assumed the same, I should have made that clearer