Invincible

Caliane · Nov 9, 2023

finally getting around to this. I questioned if people were assuming infinite, or if it was stated. Angstrom does claim "infinite dimensions". A key is still, infinite dimensions does not mean infinite timelines. there is no shared branching. two dimensions that DO have similar timelines is an example of twinning, or parallel evolution, not a branching timeline.
like two twins with the same dna, developing almost exactly the same. same building blocks will result in similar end results without outside interferance.

Seananigans · Nov 9, 2023

Burns said:
Ok, so again, we are only talking about the chance that Mark helped his father subjugate earth because that is what started this whole conversation. All the other different arrangement of atoms that make up totally unconnected universe, where Mark did not have to make that choice, do not mater.

First you started at the wrong point, the first 2 branches would be the choice of Mark helping his father or not. This is because, in the multiverse, there are infinite amount of universes where Nolan comes to earth, and infinite amount of universes where he doesn't. Adding those two options does not change the fact that, when given the choice, Mark either chose to help Nolan or he does not and because both result in an infinite amount of outcomes, they happen an equal amount of times.

I couldn't find that exact picture, so here is a different one:
View attachment 499661
A = The moment before the choice.
B = Mark helping his father subjugate earth
C = Mark not helping his father subjugate earth
D to ∞ = all the different arrangement of atoms after the choice was made, each reside in their own Universe (that are not connected and do not affect to each other)

How do you figure each Mark has the exact same likelihood of making either choice? That's what I can't reconcile about your version of things.

Goatface · Nov 9, 2023

Burns said:
Mark either chose to help Nolan or he does not and because both result in an infinite amount of outcomes, they happen an equal amount of times.

in theory yes, but in invincible canon, mark sides with his dad more than not. maybe going with whatever the spaghetti theory was in the flash, and mark going against omniman shouldn't be able to happen.

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

Seananigans said:
How do you figure each Mark has the exact same likelihood of making either choice? That's what I can't reconcile about your version of things.

Simply because it is a binary choice and infinity is equal to infinity, in this case, since we are using whole numbers. To try to state it another way, you cant have more infinity of [object 1], than infinity of [object 2], if those are your only two options.

In order for one choice to happen a majority of the time, there would need to be a third factor, skewing the chances.

Seananigans · Nov 9, 2023

Burns said:
Simply because it is a binary choice and infinity is equal to infinity, in this case, since we are using whole numbers. To try to state it another way, you cant have more infinity of [object 1], than infinity of [object 2], if those are your only two options.

In order for one choice to happen a majority of the time, there would need to be a third factor, skewing the chances.

Yeah this is irreconcilable though. For instance, you've already acknowledged that there will inevitably be universes where life on earth never happened. So there are infinite universes/dimensions, but some SUBSET of those have human life on earth. Then some SUBSET of those have a mark who sides with nolan.

This is all stuff you have acknowledged. By acknowledging this, you acknowledge that the concept of "infinity within infinity" creates situations where infinites are lesser or greater than others. The infinite number of universes is necessarily larger than the infinite number of universes where earth developed humans, and so on.

That is how you have a majority within infinity.

You seem to just be saying "because infinity" as your reason for what you're saying. I don't think it would work that way.

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

Seananigans said:
Yeah this is irreconcilable though. For instance, you've already acknowledged that there will inevitably be universes where life on earth never happened. So there are infinite universes/dimensions, but some SUBSET of those have human life on earth. Then some SUBSET of those have a mark who sides with nolan.

This is all stuff you have acknowledged. By acknowledging this, you acknowledge that the concept of "infinity within infinity" creates situations where infinites are lesser or greater than others. The infinite number of universes is necessarily larger than the infinite number of universes where earth developed humans, and so on.

That is how you have a majority within infinity.

You seem to just be saying "because infinity" as your reason for what you're saying. I don't think it would work that way.

The filtering example is that we are filtering for events/choices. To use real numbers: We have 10,000 universes, 5000 support life, 5000 do not. Out of the 5000 that support life, 2500 have an earth, and 2500 do not. Out of the 2500 that have earth, 1250 have a Mark, 1250 do not. Out of the 1250 Marks, 750 side with his dad, 750 do not.

We are only looking at those 1250 marks, nothing else changes whether Mark is good/evil. In order to make a statement "The majority of Marks sided with his father" it would need to be something other than a binary yes/no choice.

Seananigans · Nov 9, 2023

Burns said:
Out of the 1250 Marks, 750 side with his dad, 750 do not.

We are only looking at those 1250 marks, nothing else changes whether Mark is good/evil. In order to make a statement "The majority of Marks sided with his father" it would need to be something other than a binary yes/no choice.

For this to be true, Mark would have to have an equal chance for either choice. We already know this isn't the case. Just like you don't have an equal chance of committing suicide in the next 15 minutes, or NOT committing suicide in the next 15 minutes.

You're reducing things down to a binary when it's not appropriate or relevant.

Kiroy · Nov 9, 2023

Seananigans said:
So the fundamental disagreement is that you're saying all infinities are equal, and I am saying that's not true.

There are infinite planets in our universe. Would you say that there are infinite planets in our universe without humans, and infinite planets in our universe WITH humans?

With infinite multiverses I've always wondered if there's a version of the idea that follows laws of physics and a version that doesn't.

I feel like if any ruleset was layered upon a multiverse theory, that covered all versions, then it couldn't be infinite.

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

Seananigans said:
For this to be true, Mark would have to have an equal chance for either choice. We already know this isn't the case. Just like you don't have an equal chance of committing suicide in the next 15 minutes, or NOT committing suicide in the next 15 minutes.

You're reducing things down to a binary when it's not appropriate or relevant.

When talking about infinity all you can do is reduce it down to the underlying choice. There is no 3 out of 4 times in infinity, on a binary choice. Mark is given two options he does one or he does the other, nothing else matters when you inflate the numbers to infinity.

Seananigans · Nov 9, 2023

Burns said:
When talking about infinity all you can do is reduce it down to the underlying choice. There is no 3 out of 4 times in infinity, on a binary choice. Mark is given two options he does one or he does the other, nothing else matters when you inflate the numbers to infinity.

Again, you're reducing things down to binary when it's not appropriate.

It is a binary outcome, but the choice is not binary, it is informed by a multitude of factors. That multitude makes it lean one way or another when you're talking probabilities. You seem to think the concept of infinite overrides probability distributions, I do not think that is the case.

You also didn't address my assertion that not all infinities are equal.

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

Kiroy said:
With infinite multiverses I've always wondered if there's a version of the idea that follows laws of physics and a version that doesn't.

I feel like if any ruleset was layered upon a multiverse theory, that covered all versions, then it couldn't be infinite.

I believe the more "accepted" multiverse theory that physicist talk about only pertain to the laws of the universe. In that each can have a small degree of difference. In one gravity is slightly different, in another, the weak nuclear force is slightly different, in another the strong magnetic force is slightly different, and so on. Each dial moves ever so slightly to make different combinations.

I don't really want to watch the whole video again right now, but I think this explains it:

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

Seananigans said:
Again, you're reducing things down to binary when it's not appropriate.

It is a binary outcome, but the choice is not binary, it is informed by a multitude of factors. That multitude makes it lean one way or another when you're talking probabilities. You seem to think the concept of infinite overrides probability distributions, I do not think that is the case.

You also didn't address my assertion that not all infinities are equal.

When talking about whole numbers, infinity is infinity (I have no clue to explain it any differently). If that is the case, then there is no informed decision. Mark makes one choice an infinite amount of time, or he makes the opposite choice an infinite amount of times. Until I can think of a different way to explain it, I don't think there is much more of a point to this discussion.

In any case, I hope I have at least demonstrated why pop-sci multiverse is an absolute shit idea.

Seananigans · Nov 9, 2023

Burns said:
When talking about whole numbers, infinity is infinity (I have no clue to explain it any differently). If that is the case, then there is no informed decision. Mark makes one choice an infinite amount of time, or he makes the opposite choice an infinite amount of times. Until I can think of a different way to explain it, I don't think there is much more of a point to this discussion.

In any case, I hope I have at least demonstrated why pop-sci multiverse is an absolute shit idea.

Well, you've certainly demonstrated that your version of the concepts of infinity don't make much sense. Curious what events or actions led to you being such an expert on it.

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

Seananigans said:
Well, you've certainly demonstrated that your version of the concepts of infinity don't make much sense. Curious what events or actions led to you being such an expert on it.

Never claimed to be an expert. My view of the multiverse theories is mostly from watching the Space Time astrophysics videos. They have a whole slew of them on the subject. I took physics and astrophysics classes (both intro level, as electives) in college too, but that was so long ago now, I'm not sure they matter.

Seananigans · Nov 9, 2023

Burns said:
Never claimed to be an expert. My view of the multiverse theories is mostly from watching the Space Time astrophysics videos. They have a whole slew of them on the subject. I took physics and astrophysics classes (both intro level, as electives) in college too, but that was so long ago now, I'm not sure they matter.

Ah, the tone of your posts suggested otherwise.

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

Seananigans said:
Ah, the tone of your posts suggested otherwise.

Sorry, I guess it's how I was taught to write: First eliminate every first person singular pronoun that you can. Such as trying to minimize writing "in my own opinion" because it should be implied, when not directly siting sources. Second, most disagreements come from misunderstanding the words or concepts involved in the discussion (people are using different definitions). Third, push your opinion as forceful as possible without trying to be rude about it (unless purposely shitposting).

Caliane · Nov 9, 2023

Kiroy said:
With infinite multiverses I've always wondered if there's a version of the idea that follows laws of physics and a version that doesn't.

I feel like if any ruleset was layered upon a multiverse theory, that covered all versions, then it couldn't be infinite.

as far as we know irl, physics are local. in theory if other universes exist, they do not need to have the same laws of physics.
time, space, gravity, etc are all specific to our universe. this is one of the big ???????? of the big bang. time didn't exist before the big bang. so, how did it get set into motion?

Void · Nov 9, 2023

So you guys are saying that Amber is a cunt in every universe then, right?

Seananigans · Nov 9, 2023

Void said:
So you guys are saying that Amber is a cunt in every universe then, right?

Apparently it's a coin flip, she's either a cunt or she's not. Half and half, both infinite.

Void · Nov 9, 2023

Seananigans said:
Apparently it's a coin flip, she's either a cunt or she's not. Half and half, both infinite.

Invincible

Avatar of War Slayer

Honorary Shit-PhD

Avatar of War Slayer

Avatar of War Slayer

Honorary Shit-PhD

Avatar of War Slayer

Honorary Shit-PhD

Marine Biologist

Avatar of War Slayer

Honorary Shit-PhD

Avatar of War Slayer

Avatar of War Slayer

Honorary Shit-PhD

Avatar of War Slayer

Honorary Shit-PhD

Avatar of War Slayer

Avatar of War Slayer

BAU BAU

Honorary Shit-PhD

BAU BAU