There is definitely a chopra-esque quality to that statement.

kendallangel wrote:

Our universe is, in effect, only one scale of the infinite Mandelbrot pattern of the multiverse. We see hints of the two scales nearest us, manifesting in our large scale of dark matter, and at our quantum scale. The universe is no free lunch, nor is any one universe, but the multiverse is --infinite and immortal.

and What The Fuc* Does That Mean?
you seem like Deepak Chopra talking woo woo

I understand it perfectly, there is no Multiverse or MWI, the discussion is OVER! It doesn't apply to macro scales, and these ideas comes from the misunderstanding of some experiments like schrödinger cat .. PERIOD.

There MUST be a multiverse, KA, but emphatically NOT of the MWI type:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/physics/loop-quantum-gravity-t9397-100.html#p1211883
The only alternative to a multiverse is a god, fine-tuning the one and only universe for life!

kendallangel wrote:

Our universe is, in effect, only one scale of the infinite Mandelbrot pattern of the multiverse. We see hints of the two scales nearest us, manifesting in our large scale of dark matter, and at our quantum scale. The universe is no free lunch, nor is any one universe, but the multiverse is --infinite and immortal.

and What The Fuc* Does That Mean?
you seem like Deepak Chopra talking woo woo

I understand it perfectly, there is no Multiverse or MWI, the discussion is OVER! It doesn't apply to macro scales, and these ideas comes from the misunderstanding of some experiments like schrödinger cat .. PERIOD.

No, "I don't have any skin in the game". I don't have a Deepak Chopra, but it sounds a painful condition. And yes, I understand superposition and Schrodinger's mind experiment to explain the principle. I just think it is an interesting idea. HTh.

There MUST be a multiverse, KA, but emphatically NOT of the MWI type:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/physi ... l#p1211883
The only alternative to a multiverse is a god, fine-tuning the one and only universe for life!

What type of Multiverse are you talking about? the idea which says there other versions of "Me"? And that I'm eternal? and that Mickey mouse exists as a president in another Universe?
This "theory" has so many implications, which we can assume that is 100% BS

What about Zero-Worlds?

I'm reading "Science and Akashic Field". I'm now believing in this force called 'Akasha' created the whole Universe.. why there must be a God? 'Akasha' we can assume that is pure energy. the book explained everything to me. The book really made sense

kendallangel wrote:

There MUST be a multiverse, KA, but emphatically NOT of the MWI type:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/physi ... l#p1211883
The only alternative to a multiverse is a god, fine-tuning the one and only universe for life!

What type of Multiverse are you talking about? the idea which says there other versions of "Me"? And that I'm eternal? and that Mickey mouse exists as a president in another Universe?
This "theory" has so many implications, which we can assume that is 100% BS

What about Zero-Worlds?

I think you are confusing the mutiverse theory I posted (and you copied in your link) with the MWI-type multiverse, for which all your criticisms are valid. I suspect, therefore, that you did not bother to read my link.

EDIT: PS, I've never heard of Zero-Worlds.

I've just done a search on "Zero-Worlds". Looks like it's a f***ing video game, for Pete's sake!

I've just done a search on "Zero-Worlds". Looks like it's a f***ing video game, for Pete's sake!

is it woo woo?

kendallangel wrote:

I've just done a search on "Zero-Worlds". Looks like it's a f***ing video game, for Pete's sake!

is it woo woo?

Strange question. Video games don't even try not to be woo when mistaken for science.

I have a question that's sort of related to the question in the OP. This experiement was done with an atom now. My question is say there are 2 observers. Is it possible for one observer to measure the atom as a wave and another to measure that same atom as a particle at that instance? If it is possible what are the consequences? That's a question that's been bothering me for some time. If wave/particle state is dependant on the observer, where there is more than one observer is there a "dominant" observer, are all observers treated equal, or is it some other way?

Sovereign wrote:I have a question that's sort of related to the question in the OP. This experiement was done with an atom now. My question is say there are 2 observers. Is it possible for one observer to measure the atom as a wave and another to measure that same atom as a particle at that instance? If it is possible what are the consequences? That's a question that's been bothering me for some time. If wave/particle state is dependant on the observer, where there is more than one observer is there a "dominant" observer, are all observers treated equal, or is it some other way?

The mistake is in the title. Scientific experiments do not measure reality-they measure natural phenomena. Jesus Christ, some people are so "bright" they are retarded.

Besides, the observers also consist of quanta, so there is no magic at all.

@ Sovereign: The fact that the scientists are conscious agents does not matter. The scientists did a deepity when they used the word "observer", a more descriptive term would be "interactor". We can't do both experiments at the same time [at least not yet], but there is some hope.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Sovereign wrote:I have a question that's sort of related to the question in the OP. This experiement was done with an atom now. My question is say there are 2 observers. Is it possible for one observer to measure the atom as a wave and another to measure that same atom as a particle at that instance? If it is possible what are the consequences? That's a question that's been bothering me for some time. If wave/particle state is dependant on the observer, where there is more than one observer is there a "dominant" observer, are all observers treated equal, or is it some other way?

The mistake is in the title. Scientific experiments do not measure reality-they measure natural phenomena. Jesus Christ, some people are so "bright" they are retarded.

Besides, the observers also consist of quanta, so there is no magic at all.

@ Sovereign: The fact that the scientists are conscious agents does not matter. The scientists did a deepity when they used the word "observer", a more descriptive term would be "interactor". We can't do both experiments at the same time [at least not yet], but there is some hope.

I wish that point you made would get explained more because every article I read muddles that point.

Sovereign wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Sovereign wrote:I have a question that's sort of related to the question in the OP. This experiement was done with an atom now. My question is say there are 2 observers. Is it possible for one observer to measure the atom as a wave and another to measure that same atom as a particle at that instance? If it is possible what are the consequences? That's a question that's been bothering me for some time. If wave/particle state is dependant on the observer, where there is more than one observer is there a "dominant" observer, are all observers treated equal, or is it some other way?

The mistake is in the title. Scientific experiments do not measure reality-they measure natural phenomena. Jesus Christ, some people are so "bright" they are retarded.

Besides, the observers also consist of quanta, so there is no magic at all.

@ Sovereign: The fact that the scientists are conscious agents does not matter. The scientists did a deepity when they used the word "observer", a more descriptive term would be "interactor". We can't do both experiments at the same time [at least not yet], but there is some hope.

I wish that point you made would get explained more because every article I read muddles that point.

i don't know why that would be so. can we see the whole EMR spectrum? No, we can only see a little window, and rely on instrumentation to see X-rays and shit. Bees and raindeers can see UV light and we can't unaided. Same same for sound, taste etc difference animals have different senses. And we haven't yet reached the limit of what we can sense with instrumentation. Those considerations alone should tell us there is probably more to see, because our instrumentation over time has enabled us to sense more stuff.
We are even trying to detect dark matter/energy, because the universe has "missing mass". And so on. Then there is the more speculative stuff, like multiverses. Maybe woo, maybe not. Perhaps not likely, but we can't really rule it out, because there is no known way to test for it, and there might never be. But back to practicality, there is still stuff out there that we can't yet sense with current instrumentation. For now, it flies under the scientific radar. We can dismiss fairies and shit with reasonable confidence.