AWKWARD ZOMBIE

YCobb wrote:You're going to have to explain that better.

Are you saying "time happens in very small increments so changes must be very small" ???? Because buddy that doesn't make a single difference and is founded on a claim of dubious and fundamentally unknowable factuality.

Let's say that events that occur in the timeline are limted to "yes" or "no" outcomes (even as far as subatomic particle behavior).

There are only two possible outcomes from any choice made, so unless the amount of choices in the universe are infinite (which would occur if time were infinite), the possible recombination of every single outcome possible is inherently finite. It'd be like a string of binary that extends from the beginning of the universe to the end of time. Any time a digit changes, it branches off, and even though it grows by a factor of two per digit, it's still finite when it reaches the last digit.

Now, not everything is a yes or no decision. There are many, many times where you have more than 2 choices. However, it's very likely that none of them have an infinite amount of choices (limits can and will be placed on the choices, many by the fundamental laws of the universe).

IF there are no choices that have an infinite amount of outcomes (which at least seems likely), and assuming time isn't infinite (this is where it gets iffy), there's a finite amount of alternate timelines. This is what GM is getting at when discussing the finite nature of the universe, if I'm understanding him correctly.

But, we don't know what limits exist on the available choices or on time itself. Perhaps in the event that there are infinite timelines, it's possible, but unlikely, to come across repeats.

It all depends on the nature of time, which we don't have a good grasp of. The theoretical nature of this makes it hard to get anywhere, but the importance of the dialogue is that once we get to a point where we CAN test this scientifically, we'll hopefully have an idea of what the hell is going on when we have the data come back.

Where are you getting the idea that there's an infinite number of possibilities from a single point? Because that's by definition impossible to prove.
Random does not mean infinite. Something can happen randomly from a set number of possibilities. Random things can happen, but more than likely not infinite things. Infinite is a very, very, disgustingly big term. It's so big it stops being a number. You cannot break infinity down into math, unlike the rest of reality. It can't be simplified.

There's not infinite possibilities at every level either. There is an incredibly finite amount of things I could do right now. My entire life, everything, could not even come close to infinite. The entire history of Earth would not have infinite possibility.

So, seeing as there's not infinite possibility at my level, there's no reason to assume so at any other level other than a scale that is itself infinitely big.

Random, yes. Random things do happen. Particles can actually just start existing for reasons we're completely unsure of. But it's more than likely not infinite. Even if there's more than we can count.


This is assuming a finite universe though, which is what I've been doing for simplicity. If the universe is actually infinite and goes on forever, then this just gets tossed right out the fucking window. Who the fuck knows at that point, because then anything could happen and any argument for anything is only correct for so long.

This is what GM is getting at when discussing the finite nature of the universe, if I'm understanding him correctly.

Yeah, basically.

The only thing is that there would be infinite branching timelines, because each finite branch would also branch and they would never stop making new branches.

Now, not everything is a yes or no decision. There are many, many times where you have more than 2 choices. However, it's very likely that none of them have an infinite amount of choices (limits can and will be placed on the choices, many by the fundamental laws of the universe).

This is the big issue with what you guys are saying. Conventional scientific reasoning, as well as common sense, indicates that nothing in this universe is boolean in a practical way unless it is engineered to be boolean or is the condition 'exists.' Whether or not a particle occupies a given space is a bad way to look at things. You should be asking "where is the particle?" There are infinite possibilities for this. It could be an inch to the right. It could be a foot to the left. It could be one Planck length up. It could be half a Planck length backwards, though at this point it becomes impossible for us to observe the difference.
(If you propose that it's impossible for velocities/positions to change at the quantum level to effect this, then you'll have a hard time justifying the claim that human choices can cause alternate timelines. Brains are much more deterministic than quantum mechanics.)

Also it's kind of bad form to argue that time is a series of discrete units. While it is true that it is impossible to observe a length of time shorter than Planck time, that doesn't mean things don't happen in Planck time. I'm sorry to keep coming back to this, but quantum events can be (and frequently are - decoherence, for example) shorter than Planck time. Again, we live in a universe that is assumed to be analog.


GM you should stop holding serious discussion. "By definition impossible to prove" applies to your arguments much more than it does to mine and you're acting much more self-assured about them, bandying about words like "bodaciously" every other sentence.

I'n not sure what you're getting at with "infinite possibilities on my level." Do you mean your hand can't exist in an infinite number of locations? Yes it can. It could exist 1/2" east of where it is now. It could exist 1/4" east of where it is right now. It could exist 1/8" east of where it is right now. It could exist 1/16" east of where it is right now. It could exist 1/32" east of where it is right now. Do you see the trend? I could start progressing by powers of three if you still don't grasp this incredibly simple concept, or maybe a different part of your body? Would that help?

Something can exist in an infinite number of locations in an infinite universe.

In a finite universe (as i said i was assuming), because the universe isn't infinite, there would be a finite number of locations.

So no, in this example there still isn't infinite possibility.

How many numbers are there between ten and zero?

Whole numbers only or are you also counting fractionals?

An infinite amount.

Which doesn't actually matter if the universe is finite. Infinite ideas can exist in a finite plane, believe it or not.

What are you saying

Your hand can move by a fraction of an inch, fractions can vary to an infinite degree of precision, your hand can exist in an infinite number of locations in any area large enough to permit your hand even just a Planck length of movement.
Why are you finding this so impossible to understand?

I mean you understand that infinite can exist in a finite place. That is a thing you are saying. Why on earth do you think that doesn't apply to possibilities? What are you missing?

I said infinite ideas can exist in a finite place.

Ideas are not necessarily things.

What are you saying? What on earth is an idea in this context? How do you convince yourself that makes sense?

Take a box. It has a capacity of one cubic foot. Put a marble in it. That marble's X, Y, and Z coordinates have an infinite number of possible values. 2, 4, 5 inches? Cool. 2.5, 4.5, 5.5 inches? A-ok. 2.25, 4.25, 5.25 inches? Perfectly reasonable. You can continue this FOREVER.

Edit: oh wait wait I get it, you're trying to counter my little number quizzes by saying numbers are just ideas? That is precious. Never talk about science again in your life.

I think Ycobb was just using the number thing as a metaphor, to say that just as iterations of numbers can be infinite within finite boundaries, the differences between entire universes could also be infinite by accounting for infinitesimial fractional differences, such as a particle being a Planck to the left, or half a Planck, or 1/4, or whatever. It's kind of a Zeno's Paradox-like situation, but you can't really divide space up into a nice grid where some amount of space is so small that it couldn't be divided further.

Ultimately, though, I'm with Vax in saying that this discussion doesn't really go anywhere, or prove anything. Even if there were a finite number of possibilites for a given universe, the number of permutations, even for a single particle, would be so great as to be functionally infinite, as in, the finite number wouldn't matter because we wouldn't even be able to comprehend that number.

And regardless of whether the number of alternate universes, if they exist, is finite or not, an omniscient God would be able to understand all of them by definition.
Even when you return back to this point, we're really just arguing about the definition of omniscience. God could have any level of power for all we know (yes, including zero). If someone says the God they believe in is omniscient, I don't see how it'd be easier to disprove than the idea of a God who isn't.

If someone has an view that's objectionable about something you feel strongly about, like abortion or same-sex marriage or religion, would you rather confront them about their views while hoping to change them, or wait for them to die off with their views if your views are superior in the end?

Call me jaded, but I learned a long time ago that 9 times out of 10, if that person holds that opinion in the first place, I'm not really going to change it. Arguing with those people proved fruitless to me, regardless of how well I presented my points or even how civil I was.

Whether or not I do say anything to them really depends on their willingness to talk about it, how much of a douche they are (very important; an intelligent discussion where nobody changes their minds is much better than a series of angry rants), how much they know factually about the subject, and whether or not I think I can get them to see some small thing about the topic differently, or at least understand my side a bit better.

I know I used to strongly hold some opinions that have since changed (I used to think gays shouldn't marry for example), but they never changed due to one discussion alone. What did it was that some people brought up some good points on the matter, discussed it respectfully but still confidently, and I worked out the nuances of the argument on my own to come to a conclusion.

Of course, not everybody is going to be willing to change their mind about their opinions. The ones willing to listen are best-case scenarios and are somewhat rare, in my experience anyway. The best you can do for the more "stubborn" ones is be patient with them, don't get frustrated with them, but try to see their point of view and explain why you believe what you believe. They'll probably never change their mind on the spot, but it can be worth it to at least get them to think.

Ive learned that debates are generally a waste of time, and just an excersize in who can yell the longest. I still tend to particpate, because fuck those other guys with their wrong opinions. Its entirerly possible that this is the wrong mindset to have, likely even, but when every cell in your body screams for agression, its getting increasingly hard to ignore.

Stranger, if you post in Taboo Topics out of a sick compulsion for attacking other people, I suggest you never post in this thread again.