/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6747892
The first and fourth replies are correct.

Everyone laugh at OP.

>>6747896
>Every major theory and every scientist worth mentioning I.E Susskind, Hawking, Linde, Guthe, Carroll all conclude that the MWI is the only logical possibility for anything to even exist in the first place. I'd say these guys are slightly more qualified than fucking /sci/.

You forgot this guy.

>>6747909
and what evidence we have for multiverse theory?

>>6747923
What evidence do you have that it doesn't?

>>6747934
>What evidence do you have a giant teapot doesn't revolve around the sun?

>>6747942
Just think about it.

>>6747892
>People take this seriously.
>The only evidence for multiple universes is a loose conjecture about the "fine tuning" of our universe.
If it's so fine tuned why're we gonna crunch, heat death, or big rip.

>>6747948
Thinking about it is called speculation, not proof.

>>6747949
Also, anthropic principle.

aren't we going to figure out whether its multiverse or our single shitty supersymmetric universe after figuring out higgs fully? it was about its mass or whatever it is in GeV

>>6747949
It has to end some way, right?
By the way, is the heat death still the most commonly accepted idea? I thought there was some major finding that supported a different outcome.

>>6747951
>Anthropic principle
Yeah, that applies very heavily, in this case.

>>6747952
My interest is piqued.
How would this be tested?

If it really does turn out... Take me somewhere without entropy.

>>6747942
I got all reasons to believe there is life in universe because I see the other planets and know that it's possible on one of those planets there are right conditions for abiogenesis. How many places have been observed that could provide right conditions for conception of universe? What are those conditions? Have we seen any effects of other universes on our universe?

>spoilers: no

Why does the universe exist?

>>6748030
Because something wants to know about the meaning of it's own existence

>>6748046
but how would that something have the ability to want to know about the meaning of its own existence if there was a point when it didn't exist?

>>6748051
dunno

>>6748030
The right question would be "Does the universe exist?"

>>6748074
Well if it does exist, why does it exist?
If God made the world, who made God?
If nothingness exploded into somethingness, what rules governed that it could do such a thing? How could the possibility of things existing (which is something) exist when there is nothing?

>>6748092
>if it does exist
focus on that. Why ask how Chupacabra looks like when you don't know if it even exists?

>>6748106
Why would the universe not exist? How can I be experiencing something if nothing exists?

>>6748108
how do you know you are experiencing something?

>>6748113
If I was experiencing nothing, I would be able to experience anything. I'm experiencing something right now, even if it's just hallucination or the Matrix or something. Something is something.
Unless you have some bullshit definition for 'nothing' that isn't actually nothing.

>>6748115
>I would be able to experience anything
wouldn't*

>>6748115
You are using a circular argument. I experience something, therefore I experience something. That's not how it works.

>>6748130
but experience is self-referential via means of a feedback loop

>>6748130
Isn't matter also self-referential? It's not like the laws of physics apply when nothing exists.

>>6748132
The fuck do I care? If you have to start with a premise to prove that premise is true, you have no fucking clue if it's true or not.

>>6748134
it's because physics are man's description of nature. Without nature there is nothing to describe

>>6747892
[10:24] (AlexanderTT): the number of worldline are not infinte
[10:24] (AlexanderTT): it is a very finite number and can be claculated

>>6747923
The likely existence of gravitational waves points to that our universe is a linear one, with a beginning and an end.

And because of this the multiverse theory becomes more plausible. I don't remember why thou.

There's so much bullshit ITT. I thought I am on /sci/. Did I missclick on /x/?

>>6747896
/thread

>>6747909
>Every major theory and every scientist worth mentioning
Theoretical physics is NOT a science. Theories in theoretical physics are NOT scientific theories.
Look up scientific method.

>>6747923
None. How are you supposed to detect evidence for an other universe that does not interact with our own universe?

>>6747934
Fuck off retard. Stay in /x/, /b/ or reddit until you learn the meaning of science.

>>6747942
What a shitty response. You won't convince him with this.

>>6747948
Called it. The idiot is still here.

>>6747949
A loose conjecture is NOT empiric evidence. Get your stuff right.

What am I doing here. People who post on this board without even knowing what science is are so stupid I am just wasting my time replying to them.

This shit would have too high of numbers to be scientifically possible.

Lets say I move my finger 1 cm up right now.

That could spawn over an amount of 10^10^100^1000^10000 at that when considering every single thing in the universe, a child in africa may have moved a centimeter to the left, an adult in Russia may have not bought that carrot that they wanted.

Now, if I move my finger instead, lets say 2cm up or 1 cm to the left, that would spawn even more "multiveses" to be in the mix.

When you are considering this stuff on an atomic level, I move my finger 1 Planck down, 2 Planck down, 3 Planck down, ect.

The supreme amount of numbers in the equation rules out the multiverse theory.

>>6748804
lol, what a retard

go on /lit/ and ask what figurative speech is.

>>6748810
That doesn't disprove it. Alternative universes "theory" (not to be confused with multiverse theory) allows limitless universes, so it doesn't matter how big the number is.

>>6748815
>lol
>ad hominem
>figurative speech
>spiderman reaction image
Here, I searched for something on your intellectual level:
http://www.turtlediary.com/preschool-games/math-games/learn-to-count.html

Have fun!

>>6748849
Don't argue with retards. They will only drag you down to their own level, and then beat you with experience.

>>6748849
>calls out on ad-hominem
>make at hominem 3 times

Can we please stop pretending posts starting with "lol" are considered formal discussion?

>None. How are you supposed to detect evidence for an other universe that does not interact with our own universe?

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion"
this so called theory is just a pseudo-scientific bullshit and I knew this before you gave me this insightful, scientific answer. I's called rhetorical question.

>A loose conjecture is NOT empiric evidence. Get your stuff right.

see the definition of evidence above. Loose conjecture is a weak argument but nonetheless evidence in favor of alternative universes theory. The guy didn't said it was empirical evidence, just evidence.

bonus round - ad hominem counter:
>Theoretical physics is NOT a science
>Fuck off retard
>The idiot is still here
>People who post on this board without even knowing what science is are so stupid
>spiderman reaction image
>Here, I searched for something on your intellectual level

>>6748824
Then wouldn't there be a universe where the mutiverse theory is wrong?

>>6749623
For alternative universes - yes, but your previous argument is still irrelevant. For multiverse theory - no, because even every available possibility have it's limitation. theory is just a man-made construct, not property of reality. When physicist say "all possibilities" they are talking about all possible initial configurations of quantum field + different values of fundamental constants like plank's length etc.

>>6747972
watch a documentary called particle fever, it's about cern and stuff
very nicely done

>>6749623
multiverse =/= many-worlds

>>6749623
And one with barbers who shave everyone except those who shave themselves.

>>6750304
How's that supposed to work?

>>6750323
His beard is in superposition

>calling the MWI "multiverse theory"
>calling it a theory when it is an interpretation

This thread is shite.

>>6752275
this whole board is like that, you should be used to it already