U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2015, 09:06 PM
 
3,012 posts, read 5,529,944 times
Reputation: 1503

Advertisements

or does each one have to be different in some way?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2015, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
12,448 posts, read 10,139,663 times
Reputation: 28069
I'll flip a coin...

Yes, it's possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 11:21 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 16,856,733 times
Reputation: 7623
To answer the OP's query...

If they exist in two different universes they cannot be exactly the same ~doh~
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,851 posts, read 51,335,478 times
Reputation: 27726
Multiverse theory is, IMO, fantasy anyway. Posited as a theory, it has gained traction with those who aren't religious but yet want some sort of context beyond their personal existence. In THEORY, the only difference in two divergent multiverses might be that a pimple on the left cheek of a pig's butt in one might be on the right cheek in another.

Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite
held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine
providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your
king!
Dennis interrupting: Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin'
swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic
ceremony!
-----------------------
Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just
because some watery tart threw a sword at you!
-----------------------
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some
moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

A scene from the movie "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail"

In multiverse theory, the above is not just a funny movie but real history in some universe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 09:15 PM
 
Location: Riding the light...
1,635 posts, read 1,384,810 times
Reputation: 1159
Is it possible for 2 parallel universes to be exactly the same?

Depends on which one you're in and which one you're looking at
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 12:19 AM
 
15,924 posts, read 16,856,733 times
Reputation: 7623
Quote:
Originally Posted by metroxian View Post
Is it possible for 2 parallel universes to be exactly the same?

Depends on which one you're in and which one you're looking at
I guess for both universes to be identical there would have to be another "you" in the other universe looking at "you"...

Not only that but the other "you" would have to have exactly the same life as yours...

Man can we extrapolate the heck out of this thread...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina
2,533 posts, read 2,696,148 times
Reputation: 3861
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
Multiverse theory is, IMO, fantasy anyway. Posited as a theory, it has gained traction with those who aren't religious but yet want some sort of context beyond their personal existence. In THEORY, the only difference in two divergent multiverses might be that a pimple on the left cheek of a pig's butt in one might be on the right cheek in another.

Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite
held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine
providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your
king!
Dennis interrupting: Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin'
swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic
ceremony!
-----------------------
Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just
because some watery tart threw a sword at you!
-----------------------
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some
moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

A scene from the movie "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail"

In multiverse theory, the above is not just a funny movie but real history in some universe.
What makes you think it is fantasy? Calling string theory fantasy is pretty brazen. Some of the top minds in physics are spending their lives working on string theory / superstring theory / M-theory..Stephen hawking, Alan guth, Brian Greene, michio kaku, Neil dehrasse Tyson, Leonard susskind, Sean Carroll. All supporters of multiverse. There are some bizarre brane-brane-world theories out there, that seems more like the fantasy. Multiverse is more than fantasy imo.

As for the OP, I don't think it's possible for it to be 100% identical, but your experience in another universe midnight be identical...only difference is, in 1 universe you made a typo in your OP. And in another universe you made a different typo. With every letter. Literally everything that can happen will happen, has already happened, and always will happen infinite times and for infinity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,851 posts, read 51,335,478 times
Reputation: 27726
"What makes you think it is fantasy? Calling string theory fantasy is pretty brazen. Some of the top minds in physics are spending their lives working on string theory / superstring theory / M-theory..Stephen hawking, Alan guth, Brian Greene, michio kaku, Neil dehrasse Tyson, Leonard susskind, Sean Carroll. All supporters of multiverse. There are some bizarre brane-brane-world theories out there, that seems more like the fantasy. Multiverse is more than fantasy imo. "

We are not that far removed from the middle ages in our thinking. Sir Fred Hoyle was a vociferous constant universe proponent who died only in 2001. If science has taught us anything, it is that "mainstream" thought, by the best and brightest scientists of the day, often has flaws. There is an exclusionary quantum camp, exclusionary Newtonian camp (rapidly dying) and a dualist camp. All try to explain our existence and the appearance of free will. In the midst of that, a THEORY was posited of the existence of multiverses. That was picked up by the media, by science fiction writers (who had actually posited it years before) and by the general public. In the flawed public understanding it takes on many aspects of religion, rather than a math construct similar to those that speculate on recursive and self-limiting universes.

Multiverse is not an elegant theory, but a brute force approach to questions about our existence in THIS universe. Somewhere over in Mongolia, a child has died of hypothermia. The effect of the death of that child upon me and people who live after me is FAR more salient by orders of magnitude in the trillions, than any possible parallel universe or multiverse. To the extent that the general public wastes time and energy on multiverse fantasies - as interpreted by journalists with the educational prowess of besotted teenagers, the real science of understanding and explaining how we fly in the face of inevitable entropy into ever more complex configurations of mind and technology is being ignored.

Why do I not trust the infallibility of current mainstream science? I have only to go back and examine the track record:

- General public: A witch! A witch! A witch! We found a witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! We have found a witch. May we burn her?
A theory! A theory! A theory! We found a theory that we believe! We've got a theory! A theory! A theory! We have found a theory that explains our existence. May we believe it?
- Scientist: How do you know she is a witch? How do you know it is a valid theory?
- She looks like one. It looks like one.

- Bring her forward. Bring it forward.
- Witch/Theory: I'm not a witch! I'm not a witch !
- But you are dressed as one.
- They dressed me like this.
- No, we didn't.
- And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
- Well?
- Reporter: We did do the nose.
- The nose?
- Journalist: And the hat. But she is a witch !
- Scientist: Did you dress her up like this?
- Public: No, no! ... Yes... A bit. She has got a wart!
- What makes you think she's a witch/theory?
- She turned me into a newt!
- A newt?
- It got better.
- Burn her anyway!

- Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch/theory.
- Are there? What are they? Tell us. - Do they hurt?
- Tell me, what do you do with witches/theories?
- Burn them!
- And what do you burn, apart from witches and theories?
- More witches! - Wood!
- So why do witches and theories burn?
- 'Cause they're made of wood /have been suggested by scientists?
- Good!
- and how do we tell if she is made of wood or the theory is valid?
- Build a bridge out of her.
- But can you not also make bridges out of stone?
- Oh, yeah.
- Does wood sink in water?
- No, it floats. Throw her into the pond!
- What also floats in water?
- Bread. - Apples. Very small rocks. Cider! Great gravy. Cherries. Mud. Churches! A duck!
- Exactly. So, logically--
- If she or a theory weighs the same as a duck...
- she's made of wood or paper.
- And therefore?
- A witch or a factual theory by a scientist!
- A duck! A duck! - Here's a duck.
- We shall use my largest scales.
- Burn the witch !
- Remove the supports!
- A witch! A valid theory!
- 'tis a fair cop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina
2,533 posts, read 2,696,148 times
Reputation: 3861
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
"What makes you think it is fantasy? Calling string theory fantasy is pretty brazen. Some of the top minds in physics are spending their lives working on string theory / superstring theory / M-theory..Stephen hawking, Alan guth, Brian Greene, michio kaku, Neil dehrasse Tyson, Leonard susskind, Sean Carroll. All supporters of multiverse. There are some bizarre brane-brane-world theories out there, that seems more like the fantasy. Multiverse is more than fantasy imo. "

We are not that far removed from the middle ages in our thinking. Sir Fred Hoyle was a vociferous constant universe proponent who died only in 2001. If science has taught us anything, it is that "mainstream" thought, by the best and brightest scientists of the day, often has flaws. There is an exclusionary quantum camp, exclusionary Newtonian camp (rapidly dying) and a dualist camp. All try to explain our existence and the appearance of free will. In the midst of that, a THEORY was posited of the existence of multiverses. That was picked up by the media, by science fiction writers (who had actually posited it years before) and by the general public. In the flawed public understanding it takes on many aspects of religion, rather than a math construct similar to those that speculate on recursive and self-limiting universes.

Multiverse is not an elegant theory, but a brute force approach to questions about our existence in THIS universe. Somewhere over in Mongolia, a child has died of hypothermia. The effect of the death of that child upon me and people who live after me is FAR more salient by orders of magnitude in the trillions, than any possible parallel universe or multiverse. To the extent that the general public wastes time and energy on multiverse fantasies - as interpreted by journalists with the educational prowess of besotted teenagers, the real science of understanding and explaining how we fly in the face of inevitable entropy into ever more complex configurations of mind and technology is being ignored.

Why do I not trust the infallibility of current mainstream science? I have only to go back and examine the track record:
Still waiting for some evidence that the multiverse is a fantasy. Enough of the fluff, show me some sources. Your example of Fred Hoyle I don't understand. His 1948 steady state theory went against the Big Bang and had many holes, and after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960's his brazen theory was proven incorrect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,851 posts, read 51,335,478 times
Reputation: 27726
I don't prove negatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top