Invincible

velk · 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.

No, that's not how it works. Infinity is not equal to infinity, it's not a number, you can't do arithmetic on it.

Consider that your argument applies to anything, leading to nonsensical results like 'Mark either spontaneously turns into a duck or he doesn't, it's a binary choice, both are infinite therefore both outcomes are equally likely'

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

velk said:
No, that's not how it works. Infinity is not equal to infinity, it's not a number, you can't do arithmetic on it.

Consider that your argument applies to anything, leading to nonsensical results like 'Mark either spontaneously turns into a duck or he doesn't, it's a binary choice, both are infinite therefore both outcomes are equally likely'

Ok, so there is an event, the result of that event is either Mark turns into a duck, or stays a human. Once that catalyst happens there are now infinite universes where Mark is a duck, and infinite universes where he stays a human. How can you say there are more universes where Mark became a duck, over universes where he stayed a human?

velk · Nov 9, 2023

Burns said:
Ok, so there is an event, the result of that event is either Mark turns into a duck, or stays a human. Once that catalyst happens there are now infinite universes where Mark is a duck, and infinite universes where he stays a human. How can you say there are more universes where Mark became a duck, over universes where he stayed a human?

No, the opposite - the set of universes where he remains human will be larger than the set of universes where he turns into a duck in proportion to how likely he was to turn into a duck in the first place ( unbelievably unlikely ).

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

velk said:
No, the opposite - the set of universes where he remains human will be larger than the set of universes where he turns into a duck in proportion to how likely he was to turn into a duck in the first place ( unbelievably unlikely ).

How do you know it is unbelievably unlikely? How would you measure the infinite of universes to decide that?

Goatface · Nov 9, 2023

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

i just like to think there is a universe where when she said she reads ta nehisi coates, mark kicked her into orbit

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

Episode 2 up (by at least 7 CST).

Seananigans · Nov 9, 2023

Burns said:
How do you know it is unbelievably unlikely? How would you measure the infinite of universes to decide that?

Let's reduce it down to something more simple and work up from there.

You've agreed that the universe is infinite, and among those infinite universes some SUBSET of them have physics we're familiar with and humans exist, etc.

How do you reconcile this "infinity within infinity?" Are there more universes in general than there are universes that specifically have humans?

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

Seananigans said:
Let's reduce it down to something more simple and work up from there.

You've agreed that the universe is infinite, and among those infinite universes some SUBSET of them have physics we're familiar with and humans exist, etc.

How do you reconcile this "infinity within infinity?" Are there more universes in general than there are universes that specifically have humans?

In the scope of the discussion I agree that the multiverse in the multiverse theory, that is seemingly used in Hollywood, is infinite. To be clear though, I do not agree that our singular universe is infinite; as in, there are not an infinite number of stars, planets, or atoms in our universe. I also do not necessarily agree that any of the multiverse theories are correct.

As for infinity within infinity, I do not see that as the case, exactly. All the universes exist next to each other, not within. The subset is just describing which of the universes you are talking about and/or how they are organized. Moving up and down the subset breakdown is moving backward and forward in time. Every split is a jump in time after an event; they no longer currently exist as they were when that event happened.

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

This episode was a bit of a snore, btw.

velk · Nov 9, 2023

Burns said:
How do you know it is unbelievably unlikely? How would you measure the infinite of universes to decide that?

At that point you are wandering a bit off actual mathematics into more philosophical territory.

In the conventional interpretation of the many worlds theory, it would be because any universe in which people spontaneously turning into ducks was likely, would be so different from the Invincible universe that Mark will have never existed in the first place. For him to exist, history has to be almost exactly the same up until the moment of his conception, something which is incompatible with people being likely to turn into ducks.

Burns · Nov 9, 2023

velk said:
At that point you are wandering a bit off actual mathematics into more philosophical territory.

In the conventional interpretation of the many worlds theory, it would be because any universe in which people spontaneously turning into ducks was likely, would be so different from the Invincible universe that Mark will have never existed in the first place. For him to exist, history has to be almost exactly the same up until the moment of his conception, something which is incompatible with people being likely to turn into ducks.

This is where the infinite shenanigans come into play. Is it possible for Mark to turn into a duck, at least once? If it's possible, then in a multiverse with infinite universes in it, wouldn't that mean there are infinite universes in which Mark could turn into a duck? Without being able to know or measure for any other limiting factor in an infinite amount of universes, isn't the best course to assume Mark turns into a duck half of the time?

j00t · Nov 10, 2023

you all are putting way too much thought into this. whatever mathematical truths we know about infinity are null and void when talking about a fictional world. the only thing that matters is what the characters say, and even then there's a level of unreliable narrator going on.

if angstrom says a majority of the time mark sides with nolan, then until we are told or shown otherwise, we should take it as truth. it's possible that angstrom was simply extrapolating "the majority" based on his own personal view of what universes he personally traveled to.

but until there's some counterpoint that someone in the show makes, we can only take it at face value regardless of what our real world understanding of the many worlds theory and infinity is. what angstrom said was a narrative point, not a scientific one.

Ambiturner · Nov 10, 2023

Burns said:
A finite multiverse would be even dumber than an infinite one, because then they would really need to try to make up some reason why it would be finite. I would wager that's a reason Marvel writers keep switching back and forth, because both are dumb, but trying to make it finite is harder to explain with something other than "because."

That's nonsense.

If every universe represents a different possibility on the quantum scale, it would be an insanely high number but never infinite. The "infinite universes" is the one that makes no logical sense

Burns · Nov 10, 2023

j00t said:
you all are putting way too much thought into this. whatever mathematical truths we know about infinity are null and void when talking about a fictional world. the only thing that matters is what the characters say, and even then there's a level of unreliable narrator going on.

if angstrom says a majority of the time mark sides with nolan, then until we are told or shown otherwise, we should take it as truth. it's possible that angstrom was simply extrapolating "the majority" based on his own personal view of what universes he personally traveled to.

but until there's some counterpoint that someone in the show makes, we can only take it at face value regardless of what our real world understanding of the many worlds theory and infinity is. what angstrom said was a narrative point, not a scientific one.

This is a conversation about why the Hollywood multiverse plot device is retarded and has nothing to do with how the real world works (mostly).

j00t · Nov 10, 2023

Ambiturner said:
That's nonsense.

If every universe represents a different possibility on the quantum scale, it would be an insanely high number but never infinite. The "infinite universes" is the one that makes no logical sense

honestly, i don't even think it would "insanely high." there is a remarkably high amount of people that have existed that have literally had little to no impact on the world around them.

j00t · Nov 10, 2023

Burns said:
This is a conversation about why the Hollywood multiverse plot device is retarded and has nothing to do with how the real world works.

but that's my point. if you're simply talking about the hollywood multiverse plot (and it's not even singular, tons of movies and shows use their own version), you can't talk about that kind of thing scientifically because the point isn't accurate science, it's about creating a certain narrative.

specifically with angstrom saying mark normally sides with nolan, the way infinity works you can't REALLY say what's normal. it's a narrative point that OUR mark is bucking the system.

Ambiturner · Nov 10, 2023

j00t said:
honestly, i don't even think it would "insanely high." there is a remarkably high amount of people that have existed that have literally had little to no impact on the world around them.

Many Worlds Theory is a separate universe created for every possibility of every quantum superposition for every particle. That number gets really big really fast

Burns · Nov 10, 2023

Ambiturner said:
That's nonsense.

If every universe represents a different possibility on the quantum scale, it would be an insanely high number but never infinite. The "infinite universes" is the one that makes no logical sense

How is a writer choosing some silly low number of universes in a finite multiverse more sensical than them calling it an "infinite multiverse"?

I'm fairly positive they are choosing some number less than 1000 when writing a finite multiverse and not 1 to the power of one million, to the power of one million, to the power of one million, to the power of one million, to the power of one million, to the power of one million, to the power of one million, to the power of one million, to the power of one million, to the power of one million, to the power of one million, to the power of one million...

Edaw · Nov 10, 2023

"God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man."

Some light reading that should shed some light on the subject.
(read in order)

Burns · Nov 10, 2023

Edaw said:
"God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man."

Some light reading that should shed some light on the subject.
(read in order)

Pre-intuitionism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cantor's theorem - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Paradoxes of set theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Questions from this material will be included in the final exam.

Extra credit:

Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I just got through Cardinal and Ordinal numbers, chief. I'm not sure I can make it through to the the exam!

Invincible

Trakanon Raider

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Trakanon Raider

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Avatar of War Slayer

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Honorary Shit-PhD

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Trakanon Raider

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Ssraeszha Raider

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Ssraeszha Raider

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Parody

Golden Baronet of the Realm