Why not? With infinite time you will be "reborn" infinite times, infinite of those times are a little bit different, so you will be "reborn" infinitely times gay........
infinite does not mean all possibilities occur.
there are different infinities.
while you are gay in an infinite universes, and you fuck your mom in an infinite universes, it doesn't mean everyone else does
If there truly are infinite universes created by spacetime branching with each quantum superposition, it basically means that everything that can happen does happen somewhere. Meaning that for every single person there would indeed exist a reality where they are gay.
We are talking about infinite universes. That alone is nothing more but speculation, so disregarding QM randomness as being only a hypothesis doesnāt really say much. Also, while we are not exactly sure, we are highly certain that QM truly is random. Either that or itās non-local or the universe is superdeterministic, neither of which we can disprove, but also something very improbable.
Of course infinite universes is speculation. We agree on that, don't we?
You are wrong about the other points:
We are not highly certain about that QM is truly random. We do not know if it is truly random or just appears random for reasons outside of our own current grasp.
Improbable is also the wrong word here. Our uncertainty in regards to this is too high.
When discussing speculations, calling something a speculation or a hypothesis is not really an argument.
Yes, the universe being either superdeterministic or non-local are the two things that could potentially make QM not random. But that being the case is highly improbable.
We are extremely sure that nothing can travel faster than light, so the universe is extremely probably local. As for superdeterminism, thatās by itās very nature untestable, so you could use Occamās razor (or my personal favourite Newtonās Flaming Laser Sword), and not deal with that possibility, as itās simply scientifically untestable.
>When discussing speculations, calling something a speculation or a hypothesis is not really an argument.
I strongly disagree. The speculation we agreed on, for sake of argument, was that there are infinite universes, not that QM is truly random. That was another proposition you brought in as truth. That, my friend, is not a way to make a solid argument, and calling that out is indeed a way to point out that your proposition is indeed just a hypothethical that we had not agreed on. In other words, it is an argument. Or what part of my reasoning do you mean is flawed?
>Yes, the universe being either superdeterministic or non-local are the two things that could potentially make QM not random. But that being the case is highly improbable.
>We are extremely sure that nothing can travel faster than light, so the universe is extremely probably local. As for superdeterminism, thatās by itās very nature untestable, so you could use Occamās razor (or my personal favourite Newtonās Flaming Laser Sword), and not deal with that possibility, as itās simply scientifically untestable.
First. For a proposition to be improbable, you need to be able to assign some type of uncertainty to whether it is true or not. There is nothing in your argument that does that.
You could argue that Occam's razor is a good heuristic for assigning such probabilities, but we know of many instances where it has failed, and more to the point is that would ignore from which distribution you picked your hypothesis (it is not uniformly sampled from all possible human-made propositions).
Also, you fail to take into consideration that there are many unknowns about QM that we still have to map out - just as people thought Newtonian physics was the real deal, QM could just be an approximation that's fantastic at certain levels of perception, but shit at others (e.g., it could be that what appears truly random in QM is actually not random in another "more correct" theory).
The original comment was about the possibility of there being a universe where every person is gay, which you disagreed with. The fact that the possibility of that is based on a hypothesis does not imply that itās not possible.
I can say that itās very improbable that the next time you open an elevator door it teleports you into the middle of an active volcano. Itās obviously extremely unlikely that would happen, but I cannot assign a probability density function to that statement in order to prove just how improbable that is.
Sure, we cannot be completely certain that QM is random, but we can and do find it very probable.
The gist in this case is that if you try the same thing an infinite number of times - which, yes, is different from infinite time - every possible outcome, however small the chance may be, will occur at least once.
What op doesn't consider is that there may be no chance for Soyjack to become gay at all. Therefore the meme is wrong.
Thanks for coming to my TED-Talk.
Since being gay is something *relatively* common there is a very real possibility of a random set of genetic switched being flipped in an alternate universe that would cause the guy to turn gay. There is a non-zero chance that the Sun will disappear in the next instant, in comparison to that a person being gay is something much more probable.
Because that would require each iteration to have almost exactly the same starting conditions.
Such a situation can occur in a multiverse setting or in an universe with infinite spacial dimensions but it is extremely improbable to get the same starting conditions in an evolving universe. Getting the same starting conditions over and over again would require reversing entropy (at least on a ālocalā level) again and again. It would require something like a type 3 (or above) Kardashev scale civilizations to do this merely on a solar system level scale.
Itās not something that can occur naturally.
But we know itās possible for everything to be the way it is now, because itās already happened. That means that it will happen again an infinite number of times. Which means there will eventually be a big bang that creates a universe where everything is the same except for this one guy who is gay
Only if we live in a cyclical universe. Which we have no way of knowing and no indications that would imply it.
Donāt get me wrong. It could make physics more elegant and Iām actually a fan of the hypothesis but just because Iām pro doesnāt mean itās correct.
Thatās true, but the above post specified āwith infinite timeā which means weāre operating off of the assumption that time is infinite and continuous
Infinite time does not have to imply that it is cyclical.
If we assume an ever expending universe as well as an ever increasing entropy of the causally bound universe and even proton decay then we will ultimately end up with an empty (causally bound) universe in which nothing ever happens and nothing will keep on happening for eternity.
It will literally experience an infinite time as this empty, static structure and will never again see the emergence of stars, planets, life,ā¦
Iām not arguing that time is cyclical. We know for a fact the Big Bang has a non-zero chance of occurring, because it did. That means that even in an entropy filled universe, it will happen again. And then, after that universe, it will happen again. And again. Between every universe there will effectively be an infinite amount of time where there is nothing happening, but if thereās even a tiny chance of a big bang occurring, then things cannot stay dead forever
>Another thing that got forgotten was the fact that against all probability a sperm whale had suddenly been called into existence several miles above the surface of an alien planet. - Douglas Adams
Your imagination is so small. With infinity, not only will you be that gay whale, but you also be an elephant an infinite number of times.
Becoming gay is the least of the adventures in store for versions of you yet to be.
This would make sense for an infinite spacial universe (= infinite in at least a 3 dimensional fundamental domain) but not for infinite time.
Assuming infinite time, entropy would just keep on increasing. All stars will die, mater will degenerate, even black holes will die and at long last we will reach maximum entropy and the universe will become perfectly static. Nothing happens and nothing will keep on happening forever.
Everything that has not occurred up until that point will never happen.
Love the deep thought there. But I feel it all falls flat when you added in entropy. Infinite time assumes there is a balance for entropy, or no entropy. Because once entropy ceases everything, time ceases. Time is measured by change. Once entropy ceases all change. There will be no time. Idk lol, just my high thoughts upon reading that.
Time does not exist. It is just a language that helps to record what was perceived, what is being perceived, and what is most likely to be perceived all resulting from constant energy redistribution. This is why we donāt see time travelers because there is no such thing as ātimeā.
Not true. Because of time dilation, we know that time is a interactable property that bends and stretches based on nature.
Time can be actively slowed or sped up based on what mass you are near. Since we live on a massive planet itās mass actively slows time for us compared to a vacuum.
Time is change. The rate at which things change, and are perceived to change, is affected by your gravity in comparison to the gravity in any other given location. Time dilation, is the result of a gravity differential.
Impossible, because more woman would be born before you got close to finishing. There are babies born every few seconds and with 4 billion women they will turn 18 before you got to 500 million
If you assume this is true, then you are essentially saying being gay is a choiche, and not sonething some peopke just are.
Otherwise, given infinite time, only all "gay" people will come out as Gay
Is time infinite though? And is it infinite enough? Because theoretically, the number of points in time even in a single second are uncountably infinite, but you probably don't think a monkey will write Shakespeare in a minute. Because it takes time for a monkey to write something long enough to be or not be Shakespeare. Further, most scientists seem to believe the universe had a beginning, so therefore, could it also have an end? Entropy seems to suggest this as well.
šæGay guy
It just a joke
That's not how that works
Until it does
Welcome to memes, mom
Why not? With infinite time you will be "reborn" infinite times, infinite of those times are a little bit different, so you will be "reborn" infinitely times gay........
infinite does not mean all possibilities occur. there are different infinities. while you are gay in an infinite universes, and you fuck your mom in an infinite universes, it doesn't mean everyone else does
If there truly are infinite universes created by spacetime branching with each quantum superposition, it basically means that everything that can happen does happen somewhere. Meaning that for every single person there would indeed exist a reality where they are gay.
that's assuming QM is truly random which is just a hypothesis. Sure, there are things that seem stochastic to us, but we know too little yet
We are talking about infinite universes. That alone is nothing more but speculation, so disregarding QM randomness as being only a hypothesis doesnāt really say much. Also, while we are not exactly sure, we are highly certain that QM truly is random. Either that or itās non-local or the universe is superdeterministic, neither of which we can disprove, but also something very improbable.
Of course infinite universes is speculation. We agree on that, don't we? You are wrong about the other points: We are not highly certain about that QM is truly random. We do not know if it is truly random or just appears random for reasons outside of our own current grasp. Improbable is also the wrong word here. Our uncertainty in regards to this is too high.
When discussing speculations, calling something a speculation or a hypothesis is not really an argument. Yes, the universe being either superdeterministic or non-local are the two things that could potentially make QM not random. But that being the case is highly improbable. We are extremely sure that nothing can travel faster than light, so the universe is extremely probably local. As for superdeterminism, thatās by itās very nature untestable, so you could use Occamās razor (or my personal favourite Newtonās Flaming Laser Sword), and not deal with that possibility, as itās simply scientifically untestable.
>When discussing speculations, calling something a speculation or a hypothesis is not really an argument. I strongly disagree. The speculation we agreed on, for sake of argument, was that there are infinite universes, not that QM is truly random. That was another proposition you brought in as truth. That, my friend, is not a way to make a solid argument, and calling that out is indeed a way to point out that your proposition is indeed just a hypothethical that we had not agreed on. In other words, it is an argument. Or what part of my reasoning do you mean is flawed? >Yes, the universe being either superdeterministic or non-local are the two things that could potentially make QM not random. But that being the case is highly improbable. >We are extremely sure that nothing can travel faster than light, so the universe is extremely probably local. As for superdeterminism, thatās by itās very nature untestable, so you could use Occamās razor (or my personal favourite Newtonās Flaming Laser Sword), and not deal with that possibility, as itās simply scientifically untestable. First. For a proposition to be improbable, you need to be able to assign some type of uncertainty to whether it is true or not. There is nothing in your argument that does that. You could argue that Occam's razor is a good heuristic for assigning such probabilities, but we know of many instances where it has failed, and more to the point is that would ignore from which distribution you picked your hypothesis (it is not uniformly sampled from all possible human-made propositions). Also, you fail to take into consideration that there are many unknowns about QM that we still have to map out - just as people thought Newtonian physics was the real deal, QM could just be an approximation that's fantastic at certain levels of perception, but shit at others (e.g., it could be that what appears truly random in QM is actually not random in another "more correct" theory).
The original comment was about the possibility of there being a universe where every person is gay, which you disagreed with. The fact that the possibility of that is based on a hypothesis does not imply that itās not possible. I can say that itās very improbable that the next time you open an elevator door it teleports you into the middle of an active volcano. Itās obviously extremely unlikely that would happen, but I cannot assign a probability density function to that statement in order to prove just how improbable that is. Sure, we cannot be completely certain that QM is random, but we can and do find it very probable.
Yea! Those other meās are gay af! Luckily in this one Iām not! (Nervously laughs) Hahaha! (Starts Sweating) ššš
The gist in this case is that if you try the same thing an infinite number of times - which, yes, is different from infinite time - every possible outcome, however small the chance may be, will occur at least once. What op doesn't consider is that there may be no chance for Soyjack to become gay at all. Therefore the meme is wrong. Thanks for coming to my TED-Talk.
Not necessarily. It's technically possible to flip a coin for infinity and always get heads.
that was my point my maan
Since being gay is something *relatively* common there is a very real possibility of a random set of genetic switched being flipped in an alternate universe that would cause the guy to turn gay. There is a non-zero chance that the Sun will disappear in the next instant, in comparison to that a person being gay is something much more probable.
Because that would require each iteration to have almost exactly the same starting conditions. Such a situation can occur in a multiverse setting or in an universe with infinite spacial dimensions but it is extremely improbable to get the same starting conditions in an evolving universe. Getting the same starting conditions over and over again would require reversing entropy (at least on a ālocalā level) again and again. It would require something like a type 3 (or above) Kardashev scale civilizations to do this merely on a solar system level scale. Itās not something that can occur naturally.
But we know itās possible for everything to be the way it is now, because itās already happened. That means that it will happen again an infinite number of times. Which means there will eventually be a big bang that creates a universe where everything is the same except for this one guy who is gay
Only if we live in a cyclical universe. Which we have no way of knowing and no indications that would imply it. Donāt get me wrong. It could make physics more elegant and Iām actually a fan of the hypothesis but just because Iām pro doesnāt mean itās correct.
Thatās true, but the above post specified āwith infinite timeā which means weāre operating off of the assumption that time is infinite and continuous
Infinite time does not have to imply that it is cyclical. If we assume an ever expending universe as well as an ever increasing entropy of the causally bound universe and even proton decay then we will ultimately end up with an empty (causally bound) universe in which nothing ever happens and nothing will keep on happening for eternity. It will literally experience an infinite time as this empty, static structure and will never again see the emergence of stars, planets, life,ā¦
Iām not arguing that time is cyclical. We know for a fact the Big Bang has a non-zero chance of occurring, because it did. That means that even in an entropy filled universe, it will happen again. And then, after that universe, it will happen again. And again. Between every universe there will effectively be an infinite amount of time where there is nothing happening, but if thereās even a tiny chance of a big bang occurring, then things cannot stay dead forever
That's why most vampires are bisexual
*coughs in jojos reference* ill throw in castlevania reference while im at it
I mean if you get bored enough you're gonna try it. And you might like it
I know the same happened to me
>Another thing that got forgotten was the fact that against all probability a sperm whale had suddenly been called into existence several miles above the surface of an alien planet. - Douglas Adams Your imagination is so small. With infinity, not only will you be that gay whale, but you also be an elephant an infinite number of times. Becoming gay is the least of the adventures in store for versions of you yet to be.
But I do get to have gay whale adventurers right?
You could be a gay whale, a gay elephant, any number of gay animals!
Y r u geh
Who said Iām geh?
U r geh
āImmortal time lordā is that a doctor who reference?
This would make sense for an infinite spacial universe (= infinite in at least a 3 dimensional fundamental domain) but not for infinite time. Assuming infinite time, entropy would just keep on increasing. All stars will die, mater will degenerate, even black holes will die and at long last we will reach maximum entropy and the universe will become perfectly static. Nothing happens and nothing will keep on happening forever. Everything that has not occurred up until that point will never happen.
This guy universes
Love the deep thought there. But I feel it all falls flat when you added in entropy. Infinite time assumes there is a balance for entropy, or no entropy. Because once entropy ceases everything, time ceases. Time is measured by change. Once entropy ceases all change. There will be no time. Idk lol, just my high thoughts upon reading that.
You'll eventually become gay and unbecome gay later
Bu bu but you wil become gay agian?
š¤Æš¤Æš¤Æ
Well, judging by Dr who, you'd probably become pansexual at some point
Time does not exist. It is just a language that helps to record what was perceived, what is being perceived, and what is most likely to be perceived all resulting from constant energy redistribution. This is why we donāt see time travelers because there is no such thing as ātimeā.
Not true. Because of time dilation, we know that time is a interactable property that bends and stretches based on nature. Time can be actively slowed or sped up based on what mass you are near. Since we live on a massive planet itās mass actively slows time for us compared to a vacuum.
What if we used another atom instead of the cesium-133 for a benchmark for what 1 second is? Would time be different?
Time is change. The rate at which things change, and are perceived to change, is affected by your gravity in comparison to the gravity in any other given location. Time dilation, is the result of a gravity differential.
So I š¢š® smart
Being smart is knowing a tomato is a fruit Being wise is knowing tomato does not belong in fruit salad.
Being smart is knowing people don't belong in a fruit salad
People become vegetables, not fruit/s
You idiot I was already gay
Iāll become gay only after I try every willing legal girl there isā¦ might not actually take that long lol
Impossible, because more woman would be born before you got close to finishing. There are babies born every few seconds and with 4 billion women they will turn 18 before you got to 500 million
You over estimate how many would be willing to have me lol.
If you assume this is true, then you are essentially saying being gay is a choiche, and not sonething some peopke just are. Otherwise, given infinite time, only all "gay" people will come out as Gay
Is time infinite though? And is it infinite enough? Because theoretically, the number of points in time even in a single second are uncountably infinite, but you probably don't think a monkey will write Shakespeare in a minute. Because it takes time for a monkey to write something long enough to be or not be Shakespeare. Further, most scientists seem to believe the universe had a beginning, so therefore, could it also have an end? Entropy seems to suggest this as well.
Theoretical thinking vs statistical thinking
Well, that was fastā¦
I mean in an alternate universe yes
This meme donāt work like that