Immense hubris on you and whoever else thinks likes this. The intellectually sound answer would be "We can't know for sure until we have evidence".
As with anything where you are lacking perfect information, we speak in probabilities. So the actual discussion will go "Are there things that could imply multiple universes?"
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
"We can't know for sure until we have evidence". <==> Without empirical evidence for things, there is no rational reason to believe they exist.
You literally repeated what he said, but in simpler English. God, contrarian p-zombies like you make me sick.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's not the point. You sure you're not the P-zombie when you can't follow 2 sentences worth of text?
When you lack perfect information, all you can do is reason about probabilities. Are there things that speak for multiverses with different parameters? Yes, the fine tuning argument etc. etc.
You're in the same camp of morons who insist that there was nothing prior to the big bang because that's as far as our current evidence goes. Suppose this type of moron existed on an isolated planet in the far future with nothing else in its visible universe, this person would incorrectly conclude that the universe was just 1 planet.
This dumbshit rhetoric kills any speculative discussion >Without empirical evidence for things, there is no rational reason to believe they exist.
There is reason to believe a ton of things we have not yet proven exist in all fields of science. Nature is a darkness of information and we have uncovered just a very tiny fraction of it.
Provide empirical evidence for your assertion then, Black person.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
What did I assert to exist? On the contrary, I asserted the nonexistence of a thing, namely a rational reason to believe in something for which evidence has never been observed.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Oh so you have no empirical evidence for your assertion in
Without empirical evidence for things, there is no rational reason to believe they exist.
?
We already knew that though
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Empirical evidence is required to assert the existence of things, not the nonexistence of things. The nonexistence of things can be assumed when there exists empirical evidence which contradicts that assumption.
Do you have any empirical evidence to support your believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
So your principle, as asserted in
Without empirical evidence for things, there is no rational reason to believe they exist.
doesn't exist?
Contribute something we didn't know.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Oh so you have no empirical evidence for your assertion in [...] ?
We already knew that though
Dogshit tier reasoning. Teaching the plebeians how to read was a mistake.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Oh hey you came back
Go ahead, prove your claim in
Without empirical evidence for things, there is no rational reason to believe they exist.
>Things don't exists because I refuse to believe them to exist.
Your inverted reasoning is just as bad and falls into the same trap assuming your beliefs somehow affect reality.
Without empirical evidence for things, there is no rational reason to believe they exist.
Except there is empirical evidence many people sense having lived other lives it has been documented for most of history with people like Plato basically saying that he has a sense that he is good at what he is good at and comes up with the ideas he comes up with because he had some previous existence in a realm of forms where the ideals all originated.
A person's claim is not empirical evidence you dumb fricking /x/Black person
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Empirical evidence is evidence gained from someone's senses and the only way to measure that is through their claims.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I lived a past life where it was revealed to me that schizos like you get eternal torture in the afterlife. Tough luck for you.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Sorry, to hear that too bad, I sense that everyone is always just projecting their own situation.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yup, you're pretty much doomed man. But we confirmed it with empirical evidence, sorry man. You do believe in empirical evidence, right?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes I do, which is why I believe we are both projecting and our own evidence is only useful in describing our own experience which basically renders everyone's sensory experience to different universes with different laws by definition.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Enjoy the torture then. Although you don't seem too worried, almost like you don't even believe the shit you spew yourself.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Ok, enjoy your poor reading comprehension and your complete inability to escape constantly projecting your own condition.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Sorry bro, I have the empirical evidence of 100000000000000000 lifetimes where I meet and converse with the God of this universe. He's gonna punish you hard and grant me eternal paradise. Sucks to be you.
>N-no your empirical evidence doesn't count! Only my schizo evidence counts!!!
Hahahahaha
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Don't worry about me, you are only describing yourself, I am already tortured, I can't even conceive of an existence without discomfort and conflict, I don't need to wait for an afterlife and you don't seem to either since you're empirical sense are so focused on constantly engaging in conflict and projecting discomfort yourself.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You see how you dismiss the very same type of schizo "evidence" you yourself put forth? That's how other people view your shitty /x/-tier posts. With this newly found self-awareness, you can frick off to /x/ or stop posting here.
Also you don't understand what "empirical" means, fricking paste eater.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I didn't dismiss it, though, I said to think about how it applies to yourself and the direct experience you know from your own empirical system instead of trying to externalize your projections onto some strawman.
I think that you don't understand what empirical means and you thought instead of relating to sensory experience like it does, you had some false belief that it was related to quantized measurement since that is the way moronic pop scientists like bill nye tend to use it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You see how you dismiss the very same type of schizo "evidence" you yourself put forth? That's how other people view your shitty /x/-tier posts. With this newly found self-awareness, you can frick off to /x/ or stop posting here.
Also you don't understand what "empirical" means, fricking paste eater.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you are an empirically moronic sophist
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession via breakdown into pure namecalling with literally no argument and not even highbrow fallacies.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>muh no argyoomunt
you never had one to begin with, sophist.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
My argument was that the only way someone's empirical experience can be measured is by asking them.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Also my other argument is that you are only so angry and confused because you conflate instrument evidence with empirical evidence because you don't actually know that empirical evidence is related to sense experience instead of instrumental data collection.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>sophist
That is what science is, a race to tell the most accurate appealing lie.
>In 1985, David Deutsch proposed a variant of the Wigner's friend thought experiment as a test of many-worlds versus the Copenhagen interpretation.[32] It consists of an experimenter (Wigner's friend) making a measurement on a quantum system in an isolated laboratory, and another experimenter (Wigner) who would make a measurement on the first one. According to the many-worlds theory, the first experimenter would end up in a macroscopic superposition of seeing one result of the measurement in one branch, and another result in another branch. The second experimenter could then interfere these two branches in order to test whether it is in fact in a macroscopic superposition or has collapsed into a single branch, as predicted by the Copenhagen interpretation. Since then Lockwood, Vaidman, and others have made similar proposals,[33] which require placing macroscopic objects in a coherent superposition and interfering them, a task currently beyond experimental capability.
There's nothing that would exclude the possibility. But at the same time it is unprovable. Unless our Universe would collide/interact with another Universe.
If multiverses turn out to be true, unlimited and every universe has random parameters, then a small fraction would be able to contain matter and a fraction of those would result in life.
Then an even smaller fraction must also be eternal paradise life universes that are eternally stable and by their parameters is an eternal great and happy environment for the life there. Conversely, there is also eternal torture sim universe where a sadist godlike being spawns from the parameters and creates life to eternally torture. What luck that we did not end up in the second one.
>What luck that we did not end up in the second one.
There is an infinite number of possible universes where there's life after death and the sadist godlike being is merely waiting patiently for you to arrive in the afterlife.
>Person A says there exists a universe other than our own >this is an unfalsifiable claim >therefore, it is logically unsound >multiverse theory is illogical
0%, unless you want to be really anal about it and say "indeterminate but non-zero".
Multiple Universes exist, but the laws of physics are all exactly the same. OP, I have traveled to other Universes, explored them in depth, and conducted many experiments. The laws are always the same. Including the amount of moronation shown on their science boards and the inevitable presence of argue bots. Argue bots are specifically designed to do nothing else but argue. Endlessly. No matter what. Reducing any reasonable discussion down to drivel. Until everything becomes pointless and suffers false vacuum collapse, eventually causing the Universe to pop out of existence.
In all Universes it was argued that argue bots were created by a civilization of trans-dimensional beings to counter the proliferation of Universes that keep popping into existence and thus cluttering everything up. It was then further argued that to continue existing a Universe must therefore be inhabited by beings who are not so utterly stupid as to waste their time arguing with argue bots. Of course then the argue bots began to argue with people about this, causing all Universes to vanish into non existence. Thus was born the "Law of Universal moronation" which states that "Everything is moronic, everywhere, at all times, and so we are all fricked."
Our Universe just happens to be in the middle of this process.
>How likely is it that there are multiple universes with different laws of physics?
Impossible to say at the moment because its still hypothetical but I would bet on other universes existing if I had to choose. To me it seems foolish to think that we are in a one of a kind special snowflake universe.
None, many worlds is a mathematical illusion, not a sign of infinite crazy universes but a sign that quantum mechanics is not understood enough.
Everything that can happen always happens, even the craziest things like the moon turning into pasta or white suddenly looking purple with dots, yet you always coincidentally stay in the one universe where everything happens according to physics and is not crazy. Makes ya think.
It requires a creative thought that's out of the box which many are unwilling to produce in this sect. Life has come ---> life comes ---> does it come a different way ---> insert creative thought here 'how?' ---> answer 100% cause I can think of one and there are philosophical thesis better than it can, such as it should or it ought.
because we can neither test they exist or prove they don't exist then the probability is 50/50
You could say the same about religion
it's not 50/50, it's 0 or 100, which averages out to 50 but that average has no practical value.
test
There's no empirical evidence for it. It's just fantasy.
Things exist before human empirical evidence confirm them to be real
Without empirical evidence for things, there is no rational reason to believe they exist.
Immense hubris on you and whoever else thinks likes this. The intellectually sound answer would be "We can't know for sure until we have evidence".
As with anything where you are lacking perfect information, we speak in probabilities. So the actual discussion will go "Are there things that could imply multiple universes?"
"We can't know for sure until we have evidence". <==> Without empirical evidence for things, there is no rational reason to believe they exist.
You literally repeated what he said, but in simpler English. God, contrarian p-zombies like you make me sick.
That's not the point. You sure you're not the P-zombie when you can't follow 2 sentences worth of text?
When you lack perfect information, all you can do is reason about probabilities. Are there things that speak for multiverses with different parameters? Yes, the fine tuning argument etc. etc.
You're in the same camp of morons who insist that there was nothing prior to the big bang because that's as far as our current evidence goes. Suppose this type of moron existed on an isolated planet in the far future with nothing else in its visible universe, this person would incorrectly conclude that the universe was just 1 planet.
This dumbshit rhetoric kills any speculative discussion
>Without empirical evidence for things, there is no rational reason to believe they exist.
There is reason to believe a ton of things we have not yet proven exist in all fields of science. Nature is a darkness of information and we have uncovered just a very tiny fraction of it.
Provide empirical evidence for your assertion then, Black person.
What did I assert to exist? On the contrary, I asserted the nonexistence of a thing, namely a rational reason to believe in something for which evidence has never been observed.
Oh so you have no empirical evidence for your assertion in
?
We already knew that though
Empirical evidence is required to assert the existence of things, not the nonexistence of things. The nonexistence of things can be assumed when there exists empirical evidence which contradicts that assumption.
Do you have any empirical evidence to support your believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence?
So your principle, as asserted in
doesn't exist?
Contribute something we didn't know.
Dogshit tier reasoning. Teaching the plebeians how to read was a mistake.
Oh hey you came back
Go ahead, prove your claim in
>things exist because I believe them to exist
This is what we call schizophrenia, anon
>Things don't exists because I refuse to believe them to exist.
Your inverted reasoning is just as bad and falls into the same trap assuming your beliefs somehow affect reality.
Except there is empirical evidence many people sense having lived other lives it has been documented for most of history with people like Plato basically saying that he has a sense that he is good at what he is good at and comes up with the ideas he comes up with because he had some previous existence in a realm of forms where the ideals all originated.
A person's claim is not empirical evidence you dumb fricking /x/Black person
Empirical evidence is evidence gained from someone's senses and the only way to measure that is through their claims.
I lived a past life where it was revealed to me that schizos like you get eternal torture in the afterlife. Tough luck for you.
Sorry, to hear that too bad, I sense that everyone is always just projecting their own situation.
Yup, you're pretty much doomed man. But we confirmed it with empirical evidence, sorry man. You do believe in empirical evidence, right?
Yes I do, which is why I believe we are both projecting and our own evidence is only useful in describing our own experience which basically renders everyone's sensory experience to different universes with different laws by definition.
Enjoy the torture then. Although you don't seem too worried, almost like you don't even believe the shit you spew yourself.
Ok, enjoy your poor reading comprehension and your complete inability to escape constantly projecting your own condition.
Sorry bro, I have the empirical evidence of 100000000000000000 lifetimes where I meet and converse with the God of this universe. He's gonna punish you hard and grant me eternal paradise. Sucks to be you.
>N-no your empirical evidence doesn't count! Only my schizo evidence counts!!!
Hahahahaha
Don't worry about me, you are only describing yourself, I am already tortured, I can't even conceive of an existence without discomfort and conflict, I don't need to wait for an afterlife and you don't seem to either since you're empirical sense are so focused on constantly engaging in conflict and projecting discomfort yourself.
You see how you dismiss the very same type of schizo "evidence" you yourself put forth? That's how other people view your shitty /x/-tier posts. With this newly found self-awareness, you can frick off to /x/ or stop posting here.
Also you don't understand what "empirical" means, fricking paste eater.
I didn't dismiss it, though, I said to think about how it applies to yourself and the direct experience you know from your own empirical system instead of trying to externalize your projections onto some strawman.
I think that you don't understand what empirical means and you thought instead of relating to sensory experience like it does, you had some false belief that it was related to quantized measurement since that is the way moronic pop scientists like bill nye tend to use it.
you are an empirically moronic sophist
I accept your concession via breakdown into pure namecalling with literally no argument and not even highbrow fallacies.
>muh no argyoomunt
you never had one to begin with, sophist.
My argument was that the only way someone's empirical experience can be measured is by asking them.
Also my other argument is that you are only so angry and confused because you conflate instrument evidence with empirical evidence because you don't actually know that empirical evidence is related to sense experience instead of instrumental data collection.
>sophist
That is what science is, a race to tell the most accurate appealing lie.
it's not like it has nothing going for it
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
>In 1985, David Deutsch proposed a variant of the Wigner's friend thought experiment as a test of many-worlds versus the Copenhagen interpretation.[32] It consists of an experimenter (Wigner's friend) making a measurement on a quantum system in an isolated laboratory, and another experimenter (Wigner) who would make a measurement on the first one. According to the many-worlds theory, the first experimenter would end up in a macroscopic superposition of seeing one result of the measurement in one branch, and another result in another branch. The second experimenter could then interfere these two branches in order to test whether it is in fact in a macroscopic superposition or has collapsed into a single branch, as predicted by the Copenhagen interpretation. Since then Lockwood, Vaidman, and others have made similar proposals,[33] which require placing macroscopic objects in a coherent superposition and interfering them, a task currently beyond experimental capability.
>a task currently beyond experimental capability.
>currently
so there might be a way
>i cant see it so it doesnt exist
sure thing incel
There's nothing that would exclude the possibility. But at the same time it is unprovable. Unless our Universe would collide/interact with another Universe.
> Computer science jobs
Wait, are you telling me there are people who believe those exist?
Until everyone started recognizing the universe is fine tuned, zero.
Now like 100%
Zero
about 1 in i
100%
0%
If multiverses turn out to be true, unlimited and every universe has random parameters, then a small fraction would be able to contain matter and a fraction of those would result in life.
Then an even smaller fraction must also be eternal paradise life universes that are eternally stable and by their parameters is an eternal great and happy environment for the life there. Conversely, there is also eternal torture sim universe where a sadist godlike being spawns from the parameters and creates life to eternally torture. What luck that we did not end up in the second one.
>Then an even smaller fraction
Fractions of infinite.
>What luck that we did not end up in the second one.
There is an infinite number of possible universes where there's life after death and the sadist godlike being is merely waiting patiently for you to arrive in the afterlife.
>Person A says there exists a universe other than our own
>this is an unfalsifiable claim
>therefore, it is logically unsound
>multiverse theory is illogical
0%, unless you want to be really anal about it and say "indeterminate but non-zero".
Multiple Universes exist, but the laws of physics are all exactly the same. OP, I have traveled to other Universes, explored them in depth, and conducted many experiments. The laws are always the same. Including the amount of moronation shown on their science boards and the inevitable presence of argue bots. Argue bots are specifically designed to do nothing else but argue. Endlessly. No matter what. Reducing any reasonable discussion down to drivel. Until everything becomes pointless and suffers false vacuum collapse, eventually causing the Universe to pop out of existence.
In all Universes it was argued that argue bots were created by a civilization of trans-dimensional beings to counter the proliferation of Universes that keep popping into existence and thus cluttering everything up. It was then further argued that to continue existing a Universe must therefore be inhabited by beings who are not so utterly stupid as to waste their time arguing with argue bots. Of course then the argue bots began to argue with people about this, causing all Universes to vanish into non existence. Thus was born the "Law of Universal moronation" which states that "Everything is moronic, everywhere, at all times, and so we are all fricked."
Our Universe just happens to be in the middle of this process.
If you believe the anthropic principle then multiple universes (or cyclic one) are a certainty.
No they are not. You are wrong and you are an idiot.
I am an argue bot. Please continue.
undefined%
All answers are inherently semantic autofellatio, and therefore are equally invalid.
>How likely is it that there are multiple universes with different laws of physics?
Impossible to say at the moment because its still hypothetical but I would bet on other universes existing if I had to choose. To me it seems foolish to think that we are in a one of a kind special snowflake universe.
None, many worlds is a mathematical illusion, not a sign of infinite crazy universes but a sign that quantum mechanics is not understood enough.
Everything that can happen always happens, even the craziest things like the moon turning into pasta or white suddenly looking purple with dots, yet you always coincidentally stay in the one universe where everything happens according to physics and is not crazy. Makes ya think.
it either exist or doesn't
so that makes it 50 50
100%
It requires a creative thought that's out of the box which many are unwilling to produce in this sect. Life has come ---> life comes ---> does it come a different way ---> insert creative thought here 'how?' ---> answer 100% cause I can think of one and there are philosophical thesis better than it can, such as it should or it ought.