/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15459165]

>Space is infinite therefore there is an exact replica of Earth out there and an exact replica of you out there.

This is retarded. No there isn't. Just is because something is without end doesn't mean it repeats.

[Anonymous No.15459234]

>>15459165
Incorrect.

If the universe is infinite, not only is there an exact copy of you, there are infinite numbers of exact copies of you. It's all in the math, son.

[Anonymous No.15459245]

>>15459165
Maybe its not exactly the same but irl people themselves are constantly changing in small ways, yet we recognize them as continuous entities. Or the water can change but its still the same river. Idk! Cute girl is that kim wexler

[Anonymous No.15459260]

>>15459234
What precludes it from being infinite with one earth and an infinite number of copies of every other planet?

[Anonymous No.15459269]

>>15459234
There's an infinite number of integers. But there's only one number 1.
There's an infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1, but none of them are 2.

[Anonymous No.15459316]

>>15459165
Sex?

[Anonymous No.15459434]

>>15459234
But which one is copy then and which one original?

[Anonymous No.15459494]

>>15459165
You have no understanding of the concept of infinity.

[Anonymous No.15459502]

so is there a planet earth out there where i was born as a petite cute latina instead of an obese white man?

[Anonymous No.15459503]

>>15459269
No but there are an infinite number of real numbers arbitrarily close to 2

[Anonymous No.15459509]

>>15459494
It's a *concept* not a reality.

[Anonymous No.15459512]

>>15459502
YWNBAW

[Anonymous No.15459514]

>>15459509
Why did you RP as an autistic zoomer while responding to my post?

[Anonymous No.15459518]

>>15459512

[Anonymous No.15459530]

>>15459165
It would be true if there were only finitely many configurations of matter, each with nonzero probability of forming but otherwise I don't see how it could be true if there were infinitely many possible configurations.

[Anonymous No.15459538]

>>15459165
is she 45?

[Anonymous No.15459539]

>>15459269
>>15459503
you are both retarded, there is 1, and the number 1 is used a lot of times.

[Anonymous No.15459548]

>>15459530
>infinitely many possible configurations.
There isn't, there are only so many config. That is the theory anyway, because there are a limited number of possible confis that eventually they will repeat.

[Anonymous No.15459551]

>>15459538
>jawline
>brow
its a tranny
posing in profile to avoid the inevitable should to hips comparison

[Anonymous No.15459784]

>>15459234
A slope on a graph can go up infinitely without repeating.

Checkmate/

[Anonymous No.15459807]

>>15459165
The earth is flat and stationary with a dome. Space is a complete meme, capeshit tier.

https://youtu.be/UOLLMkAHHQI?t=2477

[Anonymous No.15459828]

>>15459784
there's only so many ways you can arrange quantized particles in a (presumably) quantized spacetime

[Anonymous No.15459831]

>>15459828
>quantized particles in a (presumably) quantized spacetime
lmao at this scienceslop, fucking kys

[Anonymous No.15459835]

>>15459165
>This is retarded. No there isn't. Just is because something is without end doesn't mean it repeats.
No, not necessarily. The particular point you don't seem to realize is that there is a finite amount of possible universes - in particular, the assumption is that the universe has a finite amount of possible quantum states.
An infinite set of finite subsets whose cardinality is some k and the elements are {0,1} has to necessarily repeat at least once.
This doesn't mean that there are an infinite amount of Earths but if we add an assumption that the subsets are normal i.e. the limit of the function that counts the appearances of any specific finite subset in n universes divided by n is equal for all subsets, then this does hold.
It does not hold if you assume that the distribution is not normal or if the set of all possible universes is non-finite.

[Anonymous No.15459838]

>>15459831
Explain the photoelectric effect and interference of light at the same time

[Anonymous No.15459843]

>>15459835
technically one could achieve arbitrarily high excitation states of fields, raising the amount of possible universes to infinity. We just don't know what happens at extreme temperatures.

[Anonymous No.15459979]

>>15459165
Actual infinites are metaphysically impossible as demonstrated by Hilbert so obviously retarded things like this would crop up when contemplating them

[Anonymous No.15459999]

>>15459234
No, that is definitely fallacious logic. We don't have a clue how life started here and have no information on it's likelihood of occurring elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.15460015]

>>15459551
You can still see the brow ridge and the man hands. Still obviously looks like a dude.

[Anonymous No.15460016]

>>15459807
I'd rather hear what his brother Richard has to say.

[Anonymous No.15460112]

>>15459165
100% correct
people struggle to understand how infinite structures and fractals don't actually have to repeat at all
>>15459234
wrong
>>15459835
hilariously false
first of all, there's no such thing as "multiple universes" by definition, retard
secondly, the universe is infinite and fractal, and does not have a finite number of possible states at all, but an infinite number of possible states
>>15459838
>what are wave packets?
retard
>>15459979
wrong

[Anonymous No.15460250]

>>15459518
Ganbare

[Anonymous No.15460269]

>>15459316
this

[Anonymous No.15460491]

>>15460112
>people struggle to understand how infinite structures and fractals don't actually have to repeat at all

The more technical argument that an infinite universe implies infinite copies, is due to reasoning via quantum mechanics that there are a finite (though very large) number of possible quantum states given any volume of space. Thus, for our observable universe, there is only a finite number of possible permutations of quantum states.

It's questionable whether this is indeed sound, though.

[Anonymous No.15460493]

>>15459165
is that the guy from severance?

[Anonymous No.15461030]

>>15459548
>because there are a limited number of possible confis

Wrong. Because every particle and energy in the universe exists in spacetime and spacetime is ALWAYS moving. So every universal configuration is unique ad infinitum. If you do the exact dance on a moving train your state is not the same no matter how exact your moves are.

[Anonymous No.15461036]

>>15459548
>because there are a limited number of possible confis

Wrong. Because every particle and energy in the universe exists in spacetime and spacetime is ALWAYS moving. So every universal configuration is unique ad infinitum. If you do the same exact dance on a moving train your state is not the same no matter how exact your moves are.

[Anonymous No.15461066]

>>15459316
Male

[Anonymous No.15461077]

Only if
>Physics remain constant across the entire infiverse
>Matter concentration follows a truly random distribution across the infiniverse
>Infiniverse is, in fact, infinite in all directions

[Anonymous No.15461079]

[Anonymous No.15461081]

>we have all this technology
>we still don’t know for sure if the universe is infinite or not
I mean, the universe is pretty big, regardless. It makes sense that we would figure out Mickey Mouse superintelligence before knowing whether existence spans a literal infinitude.

[Anonymous No.15461084]

>>15459165
Space is not infinite, but if it was it would definitely repeat. There are finitely many possible quantum states within a given region.

[Anonymous No.15461136]

>>15461084
>There are finitely many possible quantum states within a given region.

False. As explained here>>15461036

The universe can never truly have the same configuration twice because the variable of spacetime is infinitely and always changing and doesn't repeat. Even in our tiny bubble of the observable universe the individual state at any given moment can never repeat.

[Anonymous No.15461145]

>>15459245
that's not a girl. that's a grown woman

[Anonymous No.15461146]

>>15459245
tfw you can't even step in the same river once

[Anonymous No.15461175]

>>15461079
Actually kinda sad
For the most part though, nobody even thinks about trans people outside of being in proximity to one or being online so homely women are actually for the most part just assumed to be homely women. There’s this unsettling stickman of a person in the chess club I go to, and he wears makeup and girls skirt, from a distance he looks like a thin guy, but he looks like a sickly scottish man up close. I felt so disgusted, like I was looking at a dead body or something. There’s also this tall, 5’11 woman late 20s at my gym who’s thin and less endowed, has a slightly masculine jaw line but there’s no confusion that she’s a woman. I think irl there’s not really much thought of “that rather homely woman might be a boy” because usually it’s either just a homely woman or a jarring mockery attempt that comes off as uncanny.

[Anonymous No.15461188]

>>15461136
>the variable of spacetime is infinitely and always changing and doesn't repeat
Baseless metaphysical claim.

[Anonymous No.15461197]

>>15461188
I can explain this in simple math terms
If you graph a cardioid, or a loop of any sort—— using a parametric base, even if you get a pair of coordinates on loop one and the same coordinates on loop 4, it still differs by being one thing different, the t value.

[Anonymous No.15461200]

>>15459165
Matter isn't infinite though. At least in our universe. Maybe if there were many universes out there, then you might be right.

[Anonymous No.15461204]

>>15461079
Generally ugly and fat women get the short end of the trans stick.

Funny again, because women are the primary victim of this feminist-created craze. Men aren't really affected by ruined women's sports and raped women in women's prisons or toilets.

[Anonymous No.15461214]

>>15459165
I'm so glad a lot of people here seem to get it. I see way too many people misunderstanding that an infinite number means all possible permutations. People just can't get their heads around the idea that something can have very minor changes that occur infinitely and that the changes are always minor. The sequence 1,0,11,00,111.... will never see a 2.

[Anonymous No.15461217]

>>15459494
Does the infinite sequence of all real numbers ever repeat?

[Anonymous No.15461369]

>>15459165
This retard thinks there is infinite matter. The only infinite part of the universe is the space that it is expanding into. Not the amount of matter.

Just use your brain for a second and it should hit you

[Anonymous No.15461375]

>>15461369
That's not true. Most scientists who believe the universe is infinite think it is homogeneous and isotropic, meaning it looks mostly the same everywhere. That means its composition in terms of mass and energy is very similar no matter where you look.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

[Anonymous No.15461388]

>>15461375
where did the cosmological principle originate? sounds like something someone just made up and demanded that it was true because proving that it isn't is impossible. common trick with cosmology, but conjectures which cannot be disproved are not science, the scientific method requires the possibility of disproof. those conjectures that cannot be disproved are just superstitions, they aren't part of science.

[Anonymous No.15461391]

>>15461388
While the cosmological principle cannot be proven definitively, there are several lines of evidence that support its validity:

Homogeneity of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): The CMB is the afterglow of the Big Bang and is observed in all directions of the sky. It appears remarkably uniform, with tiny temperature fluctuations at a level of about one part in 100,000. This high degree of homogeneity supports the idea that the early universe was homogeneous on large scales.

Large-Scale Structure of the Universe: Surveys of galaxies and galaxy clusters reveal a "cosmic web" of structures, consisting of vast filaments, clusters, and voids. The distribution of these structures appears to be roughly uniform on large scales, suggesting a homogeneous universe. The statistical analyses of large-scale galaxy surveys also support the notion of isotropy, showing no preferred direction in the distribution of galaxies.

Isotropy of the CMB: The CMB is not only homogeneous but also highly isotropic. Experiments such as the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and the Planck satellite have measured the CMB radiation with incredible precision, and their observations confirm that the radiation is isotropic to within one part in 100,000. This isotropy suggests that the early universe underwent a phase of rapid expansion known as inflation, which smoothed out any irregularities and made the universe appear the same in all directions.

Cosmological Redshift: The observation of cosmological redshift, where light from distant galaxies is shifted to longer wavelengths, provides evidence for the expansion of the universe. This expansion is consistent with a homogeneous and isotropic universe, as it suggests that every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy on average, with no preferred center or direction.

[Anonymous No.15461414]

>>15461391
you don't know any of that to be true, you just copied it from wikipedia, which is a propaganda website.
>Homogeneity of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): The CMB is the afterglow of the Big Bang and is observed in all directions of the sky. It appears remarkably uniform, with tiny temperature fluctuations at a level of about one part in 100,000. This high degree of homogeneity supports the idea that the early universe was homogeneous on large scales.
massive presumption, you never made any of your own observations of the 2.7º background radiation, your belief in it's cosmic origins is based on your truth of the flaming liars who publish in the replication crisis journals. it could just as easily be of more local origin. and it has a massive dipole, its not homogeneous at all.

>clusters, and voids
but also
>no preferred direction in the distribution of galaxies.

>Experiments such as the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and the Planck satellite have measured the CMB radiation with incredible precision
>incredible precision
>incredible
AKA not credible
once again your beliefs are based on your trust of people who regularly appear on retractionwatch and who never suffer any consequences when they're caught lying. they can tell whatever tall tales they want, it doesn't affect their ivory tower academic careers or their salaries. these are the people you blindly trust to be completely truthful at all times.

>Cosmological Redshift
a belief which is enforced via peer review collusion, anyone who casts doubt on it isn't allowed to publish and isn't permitted to use the 6 trillion dollar telescopes

[Anonymous No.15461418]

>>15461414
So, in other words, regardless of the years of research backing up this theory, if it doesn't conform to your conclusion it's invalid? No point arguing then, gotcha.

[Anonymous No.15461429]

>>15461204
Men have always held the responsibility of protecting women. Even if they’re criminals, they don’t deserve to raped in prison and it’s a good thing that men are invested into stopping this with vote, protest and finance.

[Anonymous No.15461442]

>>15459165
1/3 has infinite 0.333333
1/7 has infinite 0.142857142857142857
Pi is infinite and it doesn’t loop
Why do you assume infinite loops?

[Anonymous No.15461454]

>>15461442
Numbers aren't real life.

[Anonymous No.15461459]

>>15461418
>regardless of the years of research
none of that replication crisis publishing has ever made the slightest impact on anything of any meaningful significance, makes no difference to anyone if its true or not. what a waste, all those people you presume to be total geniuses wasted their lives accomplishing nothing, not a very bright
course of action, maybe they're not really all that intelligent after all.

[Anonymous No.15461461]

>>15461459
Who's intelligent then? You?

[Anonymous No.15462059]

>>15461461
My mom. She knows everything.

[Barkun: Demi-GodofSCI !hax6YPhEF6 No.15462086]

>tfw

[Anonymous No.15462167]

>>15461454
Why do you assume looping?

[Anonymous No.15462186]

>>15461459
The replication crisis is alarming. The pros may outweigh the cons though. But the cons are such deep cuts that it makes my faith in the scientific community stay fairly light. I don’t have time or resources to verify everything and I cannot blindly trust someone unless they’ve an amazing track record (and even then i should vet their claims when possible).

[Anonymous No.15462779]

>>15462167
>Why do you assume looping

If not a general consensus than it is at least a prevailing theory in the scientifc community. No matter how glaringly wrong it is.

[Anonymous No.15462789]

in every other earth you are better off
this is the bad one

[Anonymous No.15463323]

>>15461459
Science says the sky is red, why do you deny science, ugly virgin chud?

[Anonymous No.15463349]

>>15459165
You're not wrong. Complexity of the world is an infinite set of infinities of much larger order than simple infinity of the space. For one, the sky will always be different, and thus similarity will be not absolute. Well, it's not going to be absolute anyhow, considering what absolutes are and how we can only tell what we can measure. But then if your measure is rough, there are plenty of earth-like planets, but that is not what op was asking.

[Anonymous No.15463353]

>>15463349
It's the lack of lead which shuts down the neocortex, and prevents you from learning to understand the world. The illusion of extreme complexity of often trivial matters is a typical symptom.

[Anonymous No.15463354]

>>15463349
Other way I agree, btw

[Anonymous No.15463356]

>>15463353
Did you forget to say that viruses do not exist?
> The illusion of extreme complexity of often trivial matters
there's nothing trivial about absolutes

[Anonymous No.15463357]

>>15463323
The actually is red (during brief intervals every day)

[Anonymous No.15463358]

>>15463356
No, that's a different guy. I say that the immune system needs lead, not that its deficiency causes infectious diseases directly.

[Anonymous No.15463365]

>>15463356
Anyway, I think that other planets may be much more similar than expected, especially life.

[Anonymous No.15463373]

>>15463365
Life on this planet is suprisingly alien sometimes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h8WOWEqP6o
it's hard to imagine what other conditions could bring about.

[Anonymous No.15463375]

>>15463358
>the immune system needs lead
please, demonstrate where exactly

[Anonymous No.15463383]

>>15463375
Calmodulin --> calcineurin --> etc.
The same pathway that makes people fucked in the head when the lead is absent.

[Anonymous No.15463408]

>>15463383
>Calmodulin
> Three examples of affected proteins we have are Calmodulin, PKC, and Synaptotagmin. Calmodulin and PKC are both messenger proteins, while Synaptotagmin is a membrane trafficking protein. Lead binding interrupts all three protein’s signaling capabilities, which leads to defects in the nervous system.

[Anonymous No.15463435]

>>15463408
Yes, there are more affected proteins. They are meant to contain lead and are meant to work that way. The proteins evolved to bind lead much more than calcium, lead as such is rather unreactive, while calcium reacts with water.

[Anonymous No.15463448]

>>15463435
>They are meant to contain lead and are meant to work that way
What way? To defect the nervous system? Meant by «who»? By your company which cannot remove lead from their water supply so they pay you to normalize it?
> calcium reacts with water
and what does it have to do with anything?

[Anonymous No.15463461]

>>15463448
>What way?
The way they work with lead.
>To defect the nervous system?
The way they work with calcium is the defect.
>Meant by «who»?
Meant the same way you are meant to havr two hands.
>By your company which cannot remove lead from their water supply so they pay you to normalize it?
Insane conspiracy theory that lead to this catastrophe.
>> calcium reacts with water
>and what does it have to do with anything?
It has to do with it that it makes it unlikely that a rather unreactive element completely accidentally poisons a protein by replacing a highly reactive element, it's far more likely that calcium is the reactive element that accidently falls in when the correct element is absent.

[Anonymous No.15463471]

>>15459165
>Space is infinite
Says who?

[Anonymous No.15463473]

>>15461369
>The only infinite part of the universe is the space that it is expanding into.
How do you know it is infinite? Maybe it's just very big but one day it will be filled up completely.
Also, kinda retarded to say that the universe is expanding "into" something if by universe one means everything that exists.

[Anonymous No.15463477]

>>15463461
I would like to see sources to your claims (or, if you discovered it yourself, give me some better rationale)
> unlikely that a rather unreactive element completely accidentally poisons a protein by replacing a highly reactive element
Biochemistry is a "little bit" different than inorganic chemistry.
Start debunking here: https://sites.tufts.edu/leadpoisoning/pathways/lead-and-calcium/
> Insane conspiracy theory that lead to this catastrophe.
Your choice of words tells stories. What is so insane about that?

[Anonymous No.15463478]

>>15463471
What does it matter? Appeal to authority is non-scientific (and it is ironic, that modern scientific publications are mostly based upon that non-scientific appeal)

[Anonymous No.15463490]

>>15463477
The main reason why I'm unable to provide a better rationale is that there is no rationale for why the way it works without lead is the correct one. It's just assumed with no explanation, so there is nothing specific to debunk.
>Your choice of words tells stories. What is so insane about that?
The toxicologists claimed that it can't possibly be very toxic until the second half of the 20th century, and it was a conspiracy theory that they were paid by the industry to lie about it. But I suspect it might not be the real origin, as there was an older attempt that claimed that it makes people have fewer children.

[Anonymous No.15463495]

>>15463490
>It's just assumed with no explanation
And why would you assume something without explanation?
> The toxicologists claimed
google micronite filter

[Anonymous No.15463523]

>>15463495
>And why would you assume something without explanation?
Exactly. Why?
>google micronite filter
I'm somewhat suspicious of asbestos as well, but I won't look into that. But yes, it's strange that glass wool is harmless but asbestos is destructive.

[Anonymous No.15463524]

>>15459234
infinite number of numbers between 2 and 3 but there is no 2137 there. This is the simplest way to explain it to a retard

[Anonymous No.15463539]

>>15463495
Anyway, asbestos isn't toxic, it does physical harm.

[Anonymous No.15463541]

>>15459503
No, the is only an arbitrary amount rather than an infinite amount because of the way you defined it.

[Anonymous No.15463544]

>>15459828
Why would you presume that when it is very clear that spacetime isn't actually quantized, that is just a semantic convenience or there would not be uncertainty in the relationship between speed and location.

[Anonymous No.15463685]

>>15461217
Yes, the pattern repeats every single radix magnitude, you start at 1 go to the highest magnitude your radix can justify, the shift the one to the left and start over.

[Anonymous No.15463714]

>>15461414
Then what is credible?
What nonscientific model of reality do you think has the most evidence and how do you assess and compare the reliability and credibility?

[Anonymous No.15463716]

>>15463524
2.213721372137...
2137 appears an infinite times between 2 and 3, retard.

[Anonymous No.15463808]

>>15459165

[Anonymous No.15463826]

>>15463539
>asbestos isn't toxic, it does physical harm.
wtf are you talking about? Does it make physical harm by falling on heads of pedestrians walking by wtc on 9/11?
Are you some well-poisoner or wtf!

[Anonymous No.15463998]

>>15459234
No, on each copy of Earth I'm thinking of a different integer (on this one it's 65475466548747564). That's enough to deal with a countably infinite number of planets. GLHF.

[Anonymous No.15463999]

>>15459260
Haha, excellent argument!

[Anonymous No.15464140]

>>15463716

[Anonymous No.15464216]

>>15463716
>Numbers are real

[Anonymous No.15464828]

So replicafags are telling me that the math says another asteroid hit another earth 70 million years ago that lead to me farting while I type this?

[Anonymous No.15464843]

>>15459165
>Just is because something is without end doesn't mean it repeats.
That is literally what it means. You don't understand the scale of infinite. There isn't 1 exact replica of Earth, there would be an infinite number of them, as well as an infinite number of slightly different ones and so on, increasing in variation.
Infinite does not exist for this reason. It's just a pure abstraction used to explain things in math.
If infinite is applied to anything tangible is just wrong.
The universe is not infinite and the multiverse exists as a pure abstraction of what could be, but there is only one existence.

[Anonymous No.15464859]

>>15464843
t. midwit
(you know it because you took the test, and I know it because I read your comment)

[Anonymous No.15464942]

>>15464843
So what is the scale that this infinite replication is supposed to be happening? Because it isn't in the observable universe. If it was so common you would think we would spot two dopplegangers at least ONCE of any celestial body in the entire observable universe. And why are their no scientists out there looking for dopplegangers? Like "chief doppleganger scientist" or something? Is it because they are afraid of being called retards?

I mean at every edge of the observable universe is another overlapping edge of another observable universe yet no dopplegangers peeking though at all. Weird.

[Anonymous No.15465249]

>>15459234
>Then it's infinite possibility that I-I meet at least some of those clones Mrr-m-Morty!

[Anonymous No.15465296]

>>15459165
>Space is infinite
wrong

[Anonymous No.15465706]

>>15463826
>wtf are you talking about?
The effect of asbestos isn't chemical, it breaks into nanometers thin tiny fibers that cause problems. It's a physical hazard, not chemical. Sort of like what diatomaceous earth is to insects.

[Anonymous No.15465736]

>>15465706
Thank you for you poise in front of my ingorant arrogance.

[Anonymous No.15465831]

>>15459234
The set of even numbers is infinite yet you will never find 1 in it

[Anonymous No.15465916]

>>15463523
>strange that glass wool is harmless
The people who work with that nasty shit will tell you otherwise. I wear a respirator whenever I have to handle that stuff, and get called a fag for doing so. Then I get to enjoy listening to those boomers hacking and gagging for hours as their lungs try to clear all the teensy glass particles out of their lungs. Fiberglass now is like asbestos was circa 1960, everyone thinks it's some miracle product that is totally safe and has no downside whatsoever, but that's because construction workers are expendable and no one gives a fuck what they die from as long as they die after their usefulness has been successfully extracted

[Anonymous No.15465923]

>>15459234
I am retarded and know nothing about physics, but would the probability really be equal across all the universe, excluding the small changes? I mean, just in the simple amount of matter, wouldn't there be less and less of it the further you get from the big bang?

[Cult of Passion No.15466011]

>>15465916
>just meow meow
You forgot hiss and claw.

>Matthew 10:34
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a claw."

[Anonymous No.15466171]

>>15465923
>wouldn't there be less and less of it the further you get from the big bang?

Here's something to really bake your noodle. The big bang had no single point of origin. It happened everywhere at once.

[Anonymous No.15467265]

>>15463685
That means it can repeat given your arbitrary condition. By every sensible definition it does not repeat.

[Anonymous No.15468129]

>>15461217
Does the infinite sequence of all real numbers ever repeat?

>>15461217
>Yes, the pattern repeats every single radix magnitude, you start at 1 go to the highest magnitude your radix can justify, the shift the one to the left and start over.

Dishonest answer.


Also one infinity can be smaller than another infinity. For example the infinity of even rational numbers is smaller than the infinity of all rational numbers. This is precisely why the universe does not repeat. The infinity of space is smaller than the infinity of all possible states.

[Anonymous No.15468656]

There are no other universes. There are no other (you)s. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a cringe Rick and Morty fan.

[Anonymous No.15469096]

>>15459165
>This is retarded. No there isn't.
You are 100% correct in your understanding of the topic, but the fact that this even needs to be said or that you think this was worth making a thread about just goes to show the sorry state of this board. /sci/ has completely been flooded with redditor normies whose understanding of science is limited entirely to pop soi and high school science classes. The irony is that the redditors on this board who constantly complain about muh conspiracy theorists and muh poltards and muh science denial are themselves scientificially illiterate and completely undermining the quality of this board with their exclusive discussion of entry-level pop soi and their constant demands for more censorship.

Anyway, to address your post, you are correct that even if space is infinite (which is actually not generally acccepted in the mainstream physics community), that would not imply the existence of an identical copy of the earth. This is a consequence of basic set theory. For instance, the set of even integers is infinite, but it certainly doesn't include every integer (in fact, it doesn't contain ANY of the odd integers), nor does the set of even integers include any repeated elements (in that case it would be a multiset, not a set).

>>15464843
>>15459234

>t. braindead normie who has no idea what he's talking about.
Pic unrelated, I just included it because I know the pop soi normies and pro-censorship Redditor types sperg at at any mention of the Lab Leak Hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.15469121]

>>15459165
>Space is infinite
>it was real in my mind
no evidence or proof that space is infinite exists, the idea is just another non scientific non disprovable conjecture. if its not disprovable then it isn't science and does not belong on this board

[Anonymous No.15469125]

>>15459234
This. also the universe is NOT infinite because if it were then wherever you look in the night sky your sightline will terminate at the atmosphere of a star. The entire night sky would be the average brightness of whatever the most common type of star is.

[Anonymous No.15469779]

>>15465916
I am still traumatized by some YT video of a researcher demonstrating some carbon nanotube toy. Not like a solid block, but a very warping and flowing kinda thing (I called it "toy" for a reason, idk what it did).
She just stood there, demonstrating it, unmasked and unvaxxed.
Nigger, how can you be simultaneously be so smart and so stupid? Are you the type of person that needs to be told "carbon nanotubes if breathed in a problem", rather than extrapolating autonomously?

[Anonymous No.15469817]

Evidence is thin, but let's say that's true. There are infinite versions of you and I, in infinite versions of reality (of course limited to versions which are conducive to human life. Perhaps more, but we'll disregard that for now)

In which case, which version is our "true" self? I'd argue, none. If that were the case, the truest version of ourselves would not actually exist anywhere, it would be an amalgamation of all our versions where various extremes cancelled out their opposites until you were left with something that, most likely, would be pretty neutral in most regards, if not all. But then, if that held true for us all, and it likely would from these assumptions, then what would differentiate one from another? Anything?

You can see how this "scientific" outlook would quickly lead to some so-called outlandish, spiritual, "all is one" perspective.

[Anonymous No.15469831]

Mass isn't infinite

[Anonymous No.15469939]

>>15469831
Says who? And more importantly, why?

[Anonymous No.15470049]

>>15469817
>all realities
I'll take just this one infinite universe, thanks. No need to graft extra fat onto the thought experiment (which is, besides, called "modal metaphysics").
>In which case, which version is our "true" self?
What is "true"? You are just juggling words, like a midwit. I don't care about "truthness" of self. I just care about what matters -- which is the one currently speaking.
I am not less real just because there are right now infinite versions of me having gay sex this very second (or call it meta-second on the orthogonal meta-time axis). Although I don't actually accept this interpretation -- me having gay sex. Because I just accept the interpretation my precise life history is a "me". Everything else are almost the same twins.
So someone that currently wears a green shit is not me.
A bit strange, but okay. It's the most parsimonious interpretation.

[Anonymous No.15470081]

>>15470049
Okay, Thrasymachus. Let's begin.

>all realities
I'll take just this one infinite universe, thanks. No need to graft extra fat onto the thought experiment (which is, besides, called "modal metaphysics").
>Establishing your basis
Little to argue for or against, here. Unless you want to argue about which terms apply to which areas of physical observation, which is generally useless.

>In which case, which version is our "true" self?
What is "true"? You are just juggling words, like a midwit. I don't care about "truthness" of self. I just care about what matters -- which is the one currently speaking.
That's an entirely different question, am I wrong?

>I am not less real just because there are right now infinite versions of me having gay sex this very second (or call it meta-second on the orthogonal meta-time axis). Although I don't actually accept this interpretation -- me having gay sex. Because I just accept the interpretation my precise life history is a "me". Everything else are almost the same twins.
So someone that currently wears a green shit is not me.
At this point we're arguing semantics, what words really mean. Let's leave that to the linguistics. I think we both understood what the other really meant. Let's not waste time with this.

>A bit strange, but okay. It's the most parsimonious interpretation.
The only argument you've made is that you think you are what you currently consider yourself to be. Reasonable, somewhat irrelevant, but you've shared no evidence for that claim. Why do you think that?

[Anonymous No.15470146]

>>15470081
>At this point we're arguing semantics, what words really mean. Let's leave that to the linguistics. I think we both understood what the other really meant. Let's not waste time with this.
That's not "arguing semantics". It's called philosophy. I shared my interpretation on what can be considered a "me". I literally didn't even comment any point by another anon. Just because you logistically reply to another anon's post doesn't mean every single sentence your post has to be an actual reply to the original anon's points. They are perfectly allowed to stand on their own.


I hope this short introduction into how human discussions work was helpful for you.

[Anonymous No.15470229]

>>15470146
Okay friend. How would you define, "you"?

[Anonymous No.15470253]

>>15469121

[Anonymous No.15471170]

>>15469121
>no evidence or proof that space is infinite exists
Stephen Hawking would disagree.

[Anonymous No.15471176]

>>15471170
died in the 80s, played by an actor since

[Anonymous No.15472867]

>>15459165
the universe is finite but has no boundaries