Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Shelfrock77 t1_iszyxzm wrote

This also ties into quantum physics because we have infinite universes. I don’t think people realize this but you’ll be able to talk to a bunch of copies of your brain in the cloud and you will have disagreements with your “me” clones given no time constraints. Even without all this tech, there is a high likelihood on this planet alone that you have a biological twin out there from another mother in the same century. The singularity will have more doppelgängers.

5

red75prime t1_it3amkf wrote

Many-worlds interpretation is just that: interpretation. You'll get exactly the same experimental results as in Copenhagen. So, no, no chatting with your doppelganger from another quantum branch.

1

[deleted] t1_it0i4mi wrote

[deleted]

−1

Shelfrock77 t1_it0ifc5 wrote

https://www.livescience.com/multiverse

As a programmer, I tend to agree with multiverse theory

5

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_it1tzdh wrote

Save your anti Rick speech for the Council of Ricks, terror Rick!

Hey, save your Rick rules for the sheep Ricks, Rick pig!

Fuck me pal! Fuck you? No no no no, fuck me!

3

[deleted] t1_it0ii20 wrote

[deleted]

−3

NefariousNaz t1_it0k0so wrote

They're not more likely interpretations.

A lot of scientists feel like the many worlds interpretation is the most likely interpretation just following the data.

It doesn't sound like you're that well versed on the subject.

4

-ZeroRelevance- t1_it1400g wrote

Yeah, there’s no ‘more likely’ interpretation, because we literally have no evidence for anything just yet. It could be Many Worlds, it could be Copenhagen, it could be Superdeterminism. As it stands, we have no way to know.

6

Shelfrock77 t1_it1alc3 wrote

What if it’s all truth even when there are clear contrast. This is how we change/reprogram our thoughts.

2

Shelfrock77 t1_it0itd9 wrote

Name a few and i’ll talk about how they fit into multiverse theory.

1

[deleted] t1_it0k3kj wrote

[deleted]

−8

3Quondam6extanT9 t1_it0v3rn wrote

Let's correct some misunderstandings. Yes, he is using theories to infer absolute conclusive statements, but those theories aren't "debunked" because they are unfalsifiable. Thats not how it works. If it cannot be demonstrated or proven then it's simply a model. Nothing about it is debunked besides external claims that don't align with the existing models.

It is however ridiculous that he assumes his opinion is meant to be taken as a given. I also believe in multiverse theory on top of many other concepts, but I would never be so presumptive as to state my beliefs as fact.

6

Shelfrock77 t1_it11ga4 wrote

“It is however ridiculous that he assumes his opinion is meant to be taken as a given. I also believe in multiverse theory on top of many other concepts, but I would never be so presumptive as to state my beliefs as fact.”

Lol you are chasing your own tail with me bro, we have no free will. Much love ❤️

1

3Quondam6extanT9 t1_it264v0 wrote

Not chasing anything. I put a lot of stock into multiverse theory as well as quantum consciousness, but they are both models for now. Untill proven otherwise, such as in the example of the recent evidence for entanglement, I can only treat them as theories.

1

NefariousNaz t1_it0w88h wrote

It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about. It being unfalsifiable doesn't mean that it is debunked. It just means that it cannot be empirically proven over other competing interpretations, which also are probably unfalsifiable as well.

I actually don't favor many worlds interpretation, but that does not preclude it as there's no way to test and verify any model currently.

Additionally there are also other models of how a multiverse would exist. If the universe goes on for infinite, or if there are multiple bubble universes with own big bang/creation event which would give the same affect. All unfalsifiable btw because it extends outside the scope of any measurement that we can ever make.

3

onyxengine t1_it11wl5 wrote

Unfalsifiable just means we don’t have the capacity to verify, not that it can’t be the case because we can’t verify it.

3