|
I used to read some physic article during my secondary school days. It was so long so I could not remember clearly.. ago
I used to wonder about UFO mysteries! But as I probe deeper into physic I've realised things such as Higher dimension, parrarel universe and multiverse, which sort of makes me thinking...ah, UFO, not so mysterious.
Actually it is the Many World Interpretation that creep me the most.  MWI, to me is complicated so I do not understand so well. But I think it meant that time is already fixed. I mean, the past, present, future is already fixed & happened.
This is how I understand MWI.
For example, you set your alarm clock at 7am. You can wake up the moment alarm clock wakes u up or sleep for a few minutes more, maybe 7:01, 7:02, 7:03, 7:04, 7:05am.
if you wake up @ 7:02am u might think ah, since 7:02am is the time I wake up, meaning the time I wake up @ 7am, 7:01am, 7:03am, 7:04am, 7:05am is all false and did not happened.
MWI seems to state that they all happened but in another timeline. When the observer observe waking up at 7:02am it just prove that the observer are at the 7:02am timeline or tuned to 7:02am frequencies.
If that is the case, that means if I've reached late for class today, there is another world where I am not late for classes. There is also another world where I am dead, maybe car crash? 
Ah, how I wished I am at a world where I declare my love few years ago and now living happily ever after.
After reading I felt, if MWI is correct interpretation of the real world, then...it just means that I am both dead and alive now, I am both single and attached now. I am both young and old?
I just felt what bummer, what is the purpose of life anyway... just be an observer and observe your finely tuned timeline until your conciousness is gone?
Ah, what a world. I will go crazy soon. I think I should just get a boyfriend and think simple and live simple life. Hm...yea!! Joyce Fighting! Fighting!
 
|
Sadly, there is no plausible way of ever proving mulitple universes/timelines.
|
Well well well, hello there me lady... :D
I came from the past to save you from your future, 
|
i dont think that that type of theory is of any use, so dont obsess over it. possible parallel universes in which all possible actions and events manifest has no effect on the one you are finding yourself in. we are currently struggling to understand consciousness and free will, so until we have reached that point we should act as though we have full control over our actions if only to be on the safe side ^^. discarding responsibility before we know for sure that we dont have any is dangerous.
|
i don't wan't to encourage anyone to commit suicide but:
you should be able to prove multiple timelines for yourself but not anyone else, if you try to kill yourself. if there are multiple timelines you will survive since "you" would be a multidimensional being with a 3dimension crosssection in our 4dimensional world. your multidimensional self will split every possible way like a tree with billions branches. so if you really want to die you have to die every way possible because every branch should have it's own(but still yours) consciousness.
|
On June 28 2010 21:33 Qeet wrote:
i don't wan't to encourage anyone to commit suicide but:
you should be able to prove multiple timelines for yourself but not anyone else, if you try to kill yourself. if there are multiple timelines you will survive since "you" would be a multidimensional being with a 3dimension crosssection in our 4dimensional world. your multidimensional self will split every possible way like a tree with billions branches. so if you really want to die you have to die every way possible because every branch should have it's own(but still yours) consciousness.
This is assuming that in all timelines/universes there is only one 'you' in which all are connected or something, rather than one 'you' for each, which to me is the logical thing to assume.
Then again, this is impossible to prove aswell, lol.
|
Yes. Get a boyfriend. Preferably a boyfriend that likes starcraft and visits this site
on an unrelated note, got an msn?
|
On June 28 2010 21:33 Qeet wrote:
i don't wan't to encourage anyone to commit suicide but:
you should be able to prove multiple timelines for yourself but not anyone else, if you try to kill yourself. if there are multiple timelines you will survive since "you" would be a multidimensional being with a 3dimension crosssection in our 4dimensional world. your multidimensional self will split every possible way like a tree with billions branches. so if you really want to die you have to die every way possible because every branch should have it's own(but still yours) consciousness.
No offense, but that pseudoscientific sci-fi pop bullshit leaves me a bit suspicious somehow.
Wonder why.
|
|
|
lol Joyce, you're so funny and weird.
|
Hey YPang! I wouldn't be one to talk. The way the broken English flows from her fingers is very remniscent of the way similarly broken English flows from yours. You guys are like broken-english soulmates. :D
Given her posting history, this type of sentiment is not indicative of her being on weed, but from her hope to interact in this online community with a potentially interesting topic. Though if I were her, I would take a page out of the book of every other prominent female on this forum and stop going out of her way to make her gender (and furthermore her relationship status) obvious. English is a language which is first-person gender-neutral and should be used in this capacity whenever possible.
On the topic of the rest of the blog, it all makes perfect sense from a mathematical point of view. In Computer Science the existence of multiple possible universes is a very natural way to allow the conversion of a difficult problem into a solvable graph (i.e. decision trees). From a practical point of view, your consciousness cannot exist across all universes. At any moment of timeline divergence, the last-known mental state of any one of your copies is no longer synchronized. If the consciousness of one of those copies ceases, all existence following that divergence is lost to the other consciousnesses. Think of it as chopping a branch off a tree.
Anyway, China rocks, xiaojoyce, and it would be super cool to see how you present yourself in your native tongue. 5/5 for effort!
|
ok i'm back i ran some tests.
i think the branchens "wither" rather fast so that you wouldn't end up in a completly different situation after your "death"
i did some jumps from my house
first jump was like 3m and i could "see" lots of alternate branches
second jump was from 6m, and it felt different while falling down to earth, it felt like someone is cutting your branches away, must be the one i died in, until i landed safely on the ground with minor injuries (quite a few bruises, my back hurts, stuff like this)
|
On June 28 2010 22:02 love1another wrote:
Hey YPang! I wouldn't be one to talk. The way the broken English flows from her fingers is very remniscent of the way similarly broken English flows from yours. You guys are like broken-english soulmates. :D
broken?! i understand his/her and mine english perfectly.
|
On June 28 2010 22:06 YPang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 22:02 love1another wrote:
Hey YPang! I wouldn't be one to talk. The way the broken English flows from her fingers is very remniscent of the way similarly broken English flows from yours. You guys are like broken-english soulmates. :D
broken?! i understand his/her and mine english perfectly.
my* english :p Sorry, I don't want to make China the next Romania on TL!
|
|
|
On June 28 2010 22:11 Caller wrote:
少女じゃありません。
that looks like japanese, while the op is chinese. maybe im missing something, but why would you use that language?
|
On June 28 2010 21:33 Qeet wrote:
i don't wan't to encourage anyone to commit suicide but:
you should be able to prove multiple timelines for yourself but not anyone else, if you try to kill yourself. if there are multiple timelines you will survive since "you" would be a multidimensional being with a 3dimension crosssection in our 4dimensional world. your multidimensional self will split every possible way like a tree with billions branches. so if you really want to die you have to die every way possible because every branch should have it's own(but still yours) consciousness.
Cool story bro.
edit: Anyways, these things are very complex and the options of what is are endless, going into "what could be" is just simply too much 
Boyfriend solutions seems rather decent way to ground yourself instead of wandering in thought - no disrespect to the whole "wandering in deep thought" as it is what makes our world go forward instead of back, but as the old saying goes: "before enlightenment, you chop wood and bring water. After enlightenment, you chop wood and bring water".
|
on a serious note: this looks like a Job for Mr. Nemo Nobody since he has experienced all branches of his life :D
|
The foundation of your views are in real physics (higher dimensions), but the rest is speculation. You might as well be worried about all the other millions of hypothetical possibilities.
|
On June 28 2010 22:15 enzym wrote:that looks like japanese, while the op is chinese. maybe im missing something, but why would you use that language?
Because he's Caller, being a dick and failing at the same time XD
|
|
|
I propose a theory that the universe is really composed at an elementary level not of particles but of tiny gnomes that attach to each other using microscopic purple suspenders of soul power. The universe as we know it is the physical manifestation of the collective dreaming of these tiny gnomes as they float in a quantum reality incomprehensible to human life. Also, god put dinosaur fossils into the ground to test our faith, free will doesn't exist, and when you aren't looking at something it grows a thick coat of zebra fur which then instantaneously disappears if observed.
The funny part is that my theory has just as much evidence and validity as the theories many of you have been peddling in this thread. Just because something sounds like it makes sense in an abstract way has nothing to do with whether or not its true when concerning subjects as far out of human science and complexity as the nature of the universe.
Unless you are actually mathematician or other variety of quantum scientist....discussing these subjects is fun but ultimately entirely pointless. Please don't pretend you understand the math behind these fields unless you actually do.
|
|
|
On June 28 2010 23:02 Barrin wrote:What I said is not really speculation, the only reason it is not provable is because "infinity" is really not possible to hold on the earth. However, IF the universe is infinite (which not everyone believes it is, and I don't either, just sayin'), then by PURE LOGIC and SHEER MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY, then well. Yeah. That's the way it is. But you're probably right, that's probably not the way it is.
1. What evidence exist of the universe's size?
2. What makes you think that garden variety logic evolved on earth is adequate or correct when it comes to the inner workings of the universe? We have already discovered many quantum effects that simple do not make any intuitive sense.
3. You agree that your assertion is unprovable and based on baseless assumptions...sounds like speculation to me...
|
If so, there is a universe where probabilities all go wrong. In that universe, if I have a 99.9999% chance at winning a hand in poker, I will lose. =D.
|
On June 28 2010 21:48 YPang wrote:
are you on weed?
What is on weed?
|
On June 28 2010 23:57 XiaoJoyce- wrote:What is on weed?
ahahahaha oh my God! this poster right here hasn't been mind corrupted yet :D
|
On June 28 2010 22:54 sob3k wrote:
Unless you are actually mathematician or other variety of quantum scientist....discussing these subjects is fun but ultimately entirely pointless. Please don't pretend you understand the math behind these fields unless you actually do.
I'm not really a professional mathematician or a physicist.
I'm pretty sure I understand more than most people do about just what math and physics are, and what some of the things are that the practicioners in these vast fields might do.
And I'm pretty sure I didn't read any posts written in this blog by anybody claiming or implying to 'understand' the math, or the physics. Except maybe yours.
The basic idea of MWI has been said again and again and again, over the course of human history, a gang of quantum physicists in Copenhagen did not just all of a sudden come up with the concept. They just got a little creeped out about it, because they were used to dealing in things that were physical in the sense of your table, which implied a certain inertness, a certain... well, certainty... which was being undermined by their very efforts to strengthen it, and relayed their confusion via this metaphor.
There are a lot of Asian philosophers and mystic texts with metaphysical conundrums and vistas that are startlingly parallel to the ones modern physicists tend to dream up while talking about the latest weird cosmology or bell's theorem etc etc.
|
|
|
On June 29 2010 00:08 Licmyobelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 23:57 XiaoJoyce- wrote:On June 28 2010 21:48 YPang wrote:
are you on weed? What is on weed? ahahahaha oh my God! this poster right here hasn't been mind corrupted yet :D
English is not my native language, so sometimes there is something I might not have come across..
I thought asking might make me look stupid keke. But not asking, I feel curious.
Hm, you should answer my question.. not ahahahaha me.
|
|
|
Waaaa? Somebody asking me, are you on weeds? And from China too..
Am I sound so crazy? Maybe recently I am lil bit on emo side...
It is really not my fault, recent blog post is all about LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE. So when I read I just share my feeling.. maybe that why I got emotional.
If I am on weeds, I am probably go gothic style, on drug, smoking cigar and screwing life keke.
|
|
|
Don't give too much credit to the "multiverse" hypothesis just yet. It's not much more than an idea at this point.
|
On June 29 2010 00:16 lespostea wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2010 22:54 sob3k wrote:
Unless you are actually mathematician or other variety of quantum scientist....discussing these subjects is fun but ultimately entirely pointless. Please don't pretend you understand the math behind these fields unless you actually do. I'm not really a professional mathematician or a physicist. I'm pretty sure I understand more than most people do about just what math and physics are, and what some of the things are that the practicioners in these vast fields might do. And I'm pretty sure I didn't read any posts written in this blog by anybody claiming or implying to 'understand' the math, or the physics. Except maybe yours. The basic idea of MWI has been said again and again and again, over the course of human history, a gang of quantum physicists in Copenhagen did not just all of a sudden come up with the concept. They just got a little creeped out about it, because they were used to dealing in things that were physical in the sense of your table, which implied a certain inertness, a certain... well, certainty... which was being undermined by their very efforts to strengthen it, and relayed their confusion via this metaphor. There are a lot of Asian philosophers and mystic texts with metaphysical conundrums and vistas that are startlingly parallel to the ones modern physicists tend to dream up while talking about the latest weird cosmology or bell's theorem etc etc.
I find if I actually read into these new theories and findings (as much as I am able), that their similarity with "Asian philosophers and mystic texts" is extremely superficial and usually overplayed by people attempting to make money by sounding scientific (Deepak Chopra...lol). In any case, it doesn't really matter if someone in the dark ages imagined something that appeared similar to the computer or string theory...its the actual inner workings of the more general idea that are actually useful science.
On my point about the futility of discussion, I'm not saying anyone here claims to understand the math...thats the problem, these theories in the actual scientific world are 105% math, there isn't anything else to them. Discussing them without it is just flat out not possible. All you can do is make up stuff that "sounds logical" and basically wank off....pretending that we can discuss the various merits of quantum theory vs m-theory or whatever is just pure BSing.
|
|
|
On June 29 2010 01:42 Barrin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I find if I actually read into these new theories and findings (as much as I am able), that their similarity with "Asian philosophers and mystic texts" is extremely superficial and usually overplayed by people attempting to make money by sounding scientific (Deepak Chopra...lol). In any case, it doesn't really matter if someone in the dark ages imagined something that appeared similar to the computer or string theory...its the actual inner workings of the more general idea that are actually useful science.
On my point about the futility of discussion, I'm not saying anyone here claims to understand the math...thats the problem, these theories in the actual scientific world are 105% math, there isn't anything else to them. Discussing them without it is just flat out not possible. All you can do is make up stuff that "sounds logical" and basically wank off....pretending that we can discuss the various merits of quantum theory vs m-theory or whatever is just pure BSing. Most of us in here already appreciate the futility of discussing such things. Perhaps you should appreciate the FUN in discussing such things. We acknowledge the fact that nothing we say in here holds any merit whatsoever, but we will still enjoy it.
By all means enjoy yourselves!
It just pisses me off when people act like they're experts in quantum physics/international diplomacy and macroeconomics because they read an article in Oprah magazine last week...
|
|
|
On June 29 2010 00:58 XiaoJoyce- wrote:Waaaa? Somebody asking me, are you on weeds? And from China too.. Am I sound so crazy? Maybe recently I am lil bit on emo side... It is really not my fault, recent blog post is all about LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE. So when I read I just share my feeling.. maybe that why I got emotional. If I am on weeds, I am probably go gothic style, on drug, smoking cigar and screwing life keke.
lol, im actually in america, move to america and get get high without much consequences, it relieves all problems.
|
On June 29 2010 01:28 sob3k wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 00:16 lespostea wrote:On June 28 2010 22:54 sob3k wrote:
Unless you are actually mathematician or other variety of quantum scientist....discussing these subjects is fun but ultimately entirely pointless. Please don't pretend you understand the math behind these fields unless you actually do. I'm not really a professional mathematician or a physicist. I'm pretty sure I understand more than most people do about just what math and physics are, and what some of the things are that the practicioners in these vast fields might do. And I'm pretty sure I didn't read any posts written in this blog by anybody claiming or implying to 'understand' the math, or the physics. Except maybe yours. The basic idea of MWI has been said again and again and again, over the course of human history, a gang of quantum physicists in Copenhagen did not just all of a sudden come up with the concept. They just got a little creeped out about it, because they were used to dealing in things that were physical in the sense of your table, which implied a certain inertness, a certain... well, certainty... which was being undermined by their very efforts to strengthen it, and relayed their confusion via this metaphor. There are a lot of Asian philosophers and mystic texts with metaphysical conundrums and vistas that are startlingly parallel to the ones modern physicists tend to dream up while talking about the latest weird cosmology or bell's theorem etc etc. I find if I actually read into these new theories and findings (as much as I am able), that their similarity with "Asian philosophers and mystic texts" is extremely superficial and usually overplayed by people attempting to make money by sounding scientific (Deepak Chopra...lol). In any case, it doesn't really matter if someone in the dark ages imagined something that appeared similar to the computer or string theory...its the actual inner workings of the more general idea that are actually useful science. On my point about the futility of discussion, I'm not saying anyone here claims to understand the math...thats the problem, these theories in the actual scientific world are 105% math, there isn't anything else to them. Discussing them without it is just flat out not possible. All you can do is make up stuff that "sounds logical" and basically wank off....pretending that we can discuss the various merits of quantum theory vs m-theory or whatever is just pure BSing.
Noo, it is not what u think keke. This is a blog, for me a blog is something to write out feeling?
If you read again, u know I am just describe how I am currently feeling right now. And the rest of the comment didn't describe the theory in detail, they just write how they feel about the theory..
I feel hurt when u actually wrote this "All you can do is make up stuff that "sounds logical" "
|
On June 29 2010 07:27 XiaoJoyce- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 01:28 sob3k wrote:On June 29 2010 00:16 lespostea wrote:On June 28 2010 22:54 sob3k wrote:
Unless you are actually mathematician or other variety of quantum scientist....discussing these subjects is fun but ultimately entirely pointless. Please don't pretend you understand the math behind these fields unless you actually do. I'm not really a professional mathematician or a physicist. I'm pretty sure I understand more than most people do about just what math and physics are, and what some of the things are that the practicioners in these vast fields might do. And I'm pretty sure I didn't read any posts written in this blog by anybody claiming or implying to 'understand' the math, or the physics. Except maybe yours. The basic idea of MWI has been said again and again and again, over the course of human history, a gang of quantum physicists in Copenhagen did not just all of a sudden come up with the concept. They just got a little creeped out about it, because they were used to dealing in things that were physical in the sense of your table, which implied a certain inertness, a certain... well, certainty... which was being undermined by their very efforts to strengthen it, and relayed their confusion via this metaphor. There are a lot of Asian philosophers and mystic texts with metaphysical conundrums and vistas that are startlingly parallel to the ones modern physicists tend to dream up while talking about the latest weird cosmology or bell's theorem etc etc. I find if I actually read into these new theories and findings (as much as I am able), that their similarity with "Asian philosophers and mystic texts" is extremely superficial and usually overplayed by people attempting to make money by sounding scientific (Deepak Chopra...lol). In any case, it doesn't really matter if someone in the dark ages imagined something that appeared similar to the computer or string theory...its the actual inner workings of the more general idea that are actually useful science. On my point about the futility of discussion, I'm not saying anyone here claims to understand the math...thats the problem, these theories in the actual scientific world are 105% math, there isn't anything else to them. Discussing them without it is just flat out not possible. All you can do is make up stuff that "sounds logical" and basically wank off....pretending that we can discuss the various merits of quantum theory vs m-theory or whatever is just pure BSing. Noo, it is not what u think keke. This is a blog, for me a blog is something to write out feeling? If you read again, u know I am just describe how I am currently feeling right now. And the rest of the comment didn't describe the theory in detail, they just write how they feel about the theory.. I feel hurt when u actually wrote this "All you can do is make up stuff that "sounds logical" "
I was more targeting my remarks at posts like this....
On June 28 2010 21:33 Qeet wrote:
i don't wan't to encourage anyone to commit suicide but:
you should be able to prove multiple timelines for yourself but not anyone else, if you try to kill yourself. if there are multiple timelines you will survive since "you" would be a multidimensional being with a 3dimension crosssection in our 4dimensional world. your multidimensional self will split every possible way like a tree with billions branches. so if you really want to die you have to die every way possible because every branch should have it's own(but still yours) consciousness.
^ pseudo-scientific egotistical garbage
|
On June 28 2010 22:54 sob3k wrote:
I find if I actually read into these new theories and findings (as much as I am able), that their similarity with "Asian philosophers and mystic texts" is extremely superficial and usually overplayed by people attempting to make money by sounding scientific (Deepak Chopra...lol). In any case, it doesn't really matter if someone in the dark ages imagined something that appeared similar to the computer or string theory...its the actual inner workings of the more general idea that are actually useful science.
On my point about the futility of discussion, I'm not saying anyone here claims to understand the math...thats the problem, these theories in the actual scientific world are 105% math, there isn't anything else to them. Discussing them without it is just flat out not possible. All you can do is make up stuff that "sounds logical" and basically wank off....pretending that we can discuss the various merits of quantum theory vs m-theory or whatever is just pure BSing.
There's is more to it than that, but whatever... I thought it was a cute blog and don't want to muck it up with some arguing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
