this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
372 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

27177 readers
4468 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I can hear this post in their voices. Maybe I’ve seen the movie too many times…nah

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 69 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (25 children)

This is actually a huge pet peeve of mine. Just because there are an infinite number of possibilities doesn’t mean anything is possible

Let’s investigate the list of natural numbers. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. It stretches on for infinity, but nowhere in this infinite set will you find the number 2.5. Or negative 1. Or countless other examples.

Next let’s consider a warehouse with an infinite number of CDs, each burned with a copy of the Donkey Kong Country soundtrack. Each of these discs are different. They have slight differences in the label, diameter, and flatness, due to manufacturing tolerances. They have different random bits that get flipped sometimes due to solar particle collision and quantum variation, which may eventually make different discs unreadable. They decay over the centuries at different rates, due to temperature and sun exposure differences in the warehouse (climate control for an infinite space is very expensive).

Each of these discs are, materially speaking, completely different from one another. But, from the perspective of our limited human perception, they are for the time being completely interchangeable. Whichever one you select, you will listen to and have the same experience.

This is by far the most likely scenario if we indeed live in a multiverse. An infinite number of earths, with an infinite number of you, lives filled with all the same mistakes and triumphs, all reading this comment together right now.

Edit: spelling

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What blew my mind is that it hasn't been proven that pi contains an infinte number of ones, for instance. It's not out of the question that there is a decimal place where the last 1 appears and there are none from then on.

It's not really likely, but we simply don't know and it is possible. It sounds weird given how many decimals of pi we've calculated, until you realise we've literally calculated 0% of them.

[–] bric@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep! Pi might be a "Normal" irrational number, which is a really poorly named classification that basically means that the "random" arrangement of numbers in pi isn't weighted and so you'll end up with 1 in 10 digits being 1, and that that will be true for all bases. We're kind of at a point where we think Pi is "normal", but we can't prove it.

If it is "normal" though, then that means that you could find any arbitrary sequence of numbers inside of pi, somewhere. Meaning that in base 128, pi would contain the ascii sequence for every book ever written, every book that ever will be written, every book that could be written, the accurate date of your death, and anything else you could ever imagine. Again, that's not proven, but we think it's the case

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah! It’s a really beautiful thing to think about. And exciting to imagine we may one day see a mathematician who works out the truth

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From a mathematical standpoint you're right, but from the standpoint of application pi has an infinitesimal accuracy without going to 45 digits. At 3.1415926535, we're more accurate than the distance between 3 atoms.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't see how that's relevant. Plus your last sentence sounds like you're just repeating something you heard but forgot a part of it, because it makes no sense as it is.

[–] bric@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

The part they're misremembering is that if you used 39 digits of pi as pi (not 45), it would be enough to calculate the circumference of the observable universe with a forward error of less than the width of a hydrogen atom (not the distance between 3)

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whenever I think about the possibility of a Multiverse it just gets so unbelievably convoluted that I can't believe that that's how the Universe/Multiverse actually exists. Is the idea that every potential change in every atom or event in the Universe leads to all these other Universes, all co-existing, no matter how small & insignificant the differences? So we'd have a ridiculous number of Universes whose sole difference from ours is that a single atom behaved slightly differently in a rock out in the parking lot. Then multiply that by EVERY possible atom in the entire Universe, all behaving slightly differently.

That's just physical matter, what about conscious decisions made by living things? So in one Universe I filled my bowl of cereal with X oz of milk VS another universe where I filled it with X+1 oz of milk, and so on. All these micro-decisions that branch out into separate timelines, multiplied by the number of living entities in the Universe, every second of every day.

So are new Universes just constantly springing into existence at every moment in time, connected to every atom and every living thing, just brought about by tiny differences? I write some gobbledygook here: aksfhkashdf in one universe, adshfoasfdoajsidd in another, pooigjmasiodmfas in another, and so on. Multiple universes all suddenly springing into existence based on random key presses? Universes can't possibly be that "easy" to create can they, all that mass and energy, just poofed into existence, and it's constantly happening every second? Is mass, energy, and space just meaningless?

Or is it some other more basic set of differences describe the universe, just the starting conditions are different, but from there, each different Universe just proceeds as is, without multiple branching timelines? I'm not smart enough to understand any of it, it just quickly gets so incredibly convoluted and complicated for me to wrap my brain around.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

CDs are optical storage, just plastic with tiny bumps. It's magnetic and solid state storage that can have bit flipping.

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, but you see, this example takes place in the universe where CDs are susceptible as well

[–] blackluster117@possumpat.io 2 points 1 year ago

I am five parallel universes ahead of you

I think a lot of people assume a multiverse works that way because popular fiction makes it look like it does. However popular fiction is using something more akin to an omniverse (idk if there is an actual agreed scientific definition for a collection of multiple multiverses so Im just using that).

Using your analogy with the donkey kong discs being different universes with slight alterations in the warehouse (multiverse). In an omniverse scenario that you see in popular fiction, next door you'd have another warehouse but instead of donkey kong discs it is mario discs, or maybe donkey kong plushies.

However again that's all speculative of if there even is a multiverse let alone something larger than that

[–] funkless@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

due to the nature of infinity — a la monkeys and typewriters — you could have not only a single CD that due to a catastrophic series of errors is actually something completely different from a CD — but an infinite number of them.

Is it entirely beyond the realms of possibility that an infinitesimally small stroke of luck could create a sentient race of CD people? Except "small" doesn't make sense in infinity — "small" just means "a less common certainty"

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

An infinite series of random letters would of course contain every book, that’s definitionally true.

But infinity itself does not empower the whims of the imagination (indeed this is the entire point). Yes, it is definitely impossible for the warehouse to contain a sentient race of CD people. Polycarbonate plastic simply cannot exhibit any of the qualities of being alive under any circumstances

[–] funkless@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know I'm nit picking here but that's the point of examining infinity, but wouldn't it be foolish to say "there are no examples of hydrogen gas becoming sentient under any circumstances!" because, well, we're both sentient decendants of a reaction between two or more hydrogen atoms.

Yes the conditions that led from hydrogen > helium > deuterium > ... > ... > ... single celled organisms > ... > ... primates > ... > ... humans are incredibly complicated and specific. But what if we applied the same complicated and specific process (or an infinite variation thereof) to the CD factory. Are you sure it's impossible? and worse yet - can you prove it?

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are you sure it’s impossible? and worse yet - can you prove it?

This is known as an argument from ignorance. I'm not sure how familiar you are with this terminology, so to be clear, I am not insulting you or calling you ignorant. But in summary, something is not true until proven otherwise.

The conditions inside the warehouse are not similar to the conditions of the early universe or the primordial soup. You need to demonstrate a mechanism for stable, non-reactive plastic to become sentient if you assert that it's indeed possible.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You haven't disproved anything. The common understanding of multiverses typically only extends to livable multiverses, but there are infinite multiverses capable of sustaining logic and organization, just as there are infinite universes of junk data.

[–] Carnelian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (16 children)

I have disproven that an infinite set necessarily contains every arbitrary possibility. And quite simply, too. Notice how the set of natural numbers does not contain any grapes.

Thus, the burden of proof is now on those who claim they do know what is in the multiverse. Such as yourself. What evidence do you have for these “junk data” universes?

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

A multiverse is something external to any one universe in that multiverse, so even in an infinite number of universes there cannot be one which redefines what's outside that universe.

The way it was stated is not a paradox, it's simply logically invalid.

Valid statements would be that in a multiverse there can be one universe where it's impossible to access the rest of the multiverse or that there can be one universe were the theory of the multiverse was never and will never be thought of.

And then of course, on top of this there is @Carnelian's even bigger point, which is that it's perfectly possible to have an infinity of possibilities which are all bound by certain rules. A simple mathematical example: there is an infinite number of decimal numbers in between the integers 0 and 1.

[–] hopelessbyanxiety@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

are u saying that all those who up voted the meme, did it just bc they didn't understand what they were reading? tbh i didn't even understand the first sentence you wrote. That means you must be very smart. Not sure if i will up vote u

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, if there's a multiverse where all possibilities play out, and if any universe can directly affect another, then there's an infinite number of universes that do affect or get affected by others and there's an infinite number of universes that don't.

Just like time travel with multiple timelines. If you travel back in time, you're splitting off at least 3 timelines. One is the original where the past remains unchanged and you timetravel, one is the original where the past is the same and you fail to timetravel, and one is the original timeline up to the point that you travel to, at which point it diverges probably very drastically (which makes me think that traveling back in time will be a one way trip because your original timeline won't be very close to the new one's future). Though if you can travel back to the future, there will be one version where you never do to pair with the one where you do.

Though I'm not holding my breath on any kind of direct influence between universe and timelines other than maybe something like gravity from one can affect others, and really don't think that traveling from one to another will be possible. But who knows what is really possible, as advanced as we might be compared to our past, I wouldn't be surprised if our knowledge is still just a drop out of a whole ocean.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is like saying if Australia has multiple states, then there must be a state where Australia doesn't exist

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

... but Australia doesn't exist???

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

What always bothered me about multiverse moves is how a person's life could be so different across universes, even though their ancestors lives must've been fairly consistent across universes or they wouldn't exist. Hell, forget about whether you would be born, would humans even evolve? Would life even evolve? A lot happened between the big bang and your conception. A lot could've happened. I'm just talking out of my ass though

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

would humans even evolve? Would life even evolve?

[–] Lith@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I often think about the silicon lifeform from A Martian Odyssey because of how uniquely different it is from the carbon-based lifeforms we're used to seeing even in science fiction.

[–] misterundercoat@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are correct in thinking that there would be an infinite subset of universes where humans never evolved. However, there would also be a much smaller, but still infinite, subset of universes where humans did evolve. And there would be a muuuuuch smaller, but still infinite, subset of universes where the history of the universe and all of human history transpired exactly as it did in our universe, up until the point it diverged with the necessary changes in order to be relevant to the plot of the movie. That tiny tiny tiny subset is the only thing we talk about in movies, because otherwise it would be too confusing for general audiences. Hope this helps.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

That's a good point. A fraction of infinity is still infinity

[–] ultratiem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One small change can lead to a totally divergent path. Think about it this way. You are supposed to meet your SO today at work. But you forgot to brush. No big deal. Right? Well your SO says hello, so you say it back and then she gets a whiff. Well end of conversation and that’s that. No wife. No kids. Not with her.

Or maybe you miss that buss that you barely caught. Or maybe you win the lotto at 19 and that changes everything for you.

You’re thinking wrong if you think lives have to be drastically different in every way for it to manifest as a whole new life. It can be the smallest thing but that tiny, infinitesimal thing can lead to a cascade of change or shunt people down an entirely different path.

Lastly, your ancestors would also be subject to these events, making all their lives very different as well.

Butterfly Effect.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 001100010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Two Scenarios:

Scenario A:

There could be a multiverse and there are some universes within the multiverse where the people within them don't believe in the multiverse, but not believing doesn't mean it isn't real.

Scenario B:

Conversely, there could be only one universe and the people in that sole universe believes in the multiverse, which in this scenario, doesn't exist.

load more comments
view more: next ›