Quote of the day

posted at 10:15 pm on September 23, 2007 by Allahpundit

“Every time there is an event at the quantum level – a radioactive atom decaying, for example, or a particle of light impinging on your retina – the universe is supposed to ‘split’ into different universes.

A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.

In this way, the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics allows a time traveller to alter the past without producing problems such as the notorious grandfather paradox.

But the ‘many worlds’ idea has been attacked, with one theoretician joking that it is ‘cheap on assumptions but expensive on universes’ and others that it is ‘repugnant to common sense.’

Now new research confirms Prof Deutsch’s ideas and suggests that Dr Everett, who was a Phd student at Princeton University when he came up with the theory, was on the right track.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hope so, there was this blonde in the Ice Capades when I was in 7th grade…..

bbz123 on September 23, 2007 at 10:17 PM

Yawn. The more I read about quantum mechanics and these supposed multiple universes, the more I think that these guys are just fanboy comic geeks who can’t get a date, and so rant about multiple universes as a throwback to their childhood. Whatever happened to replication, falsifiability, and the scientific method? I could write an equation “proving” that multiple universes exist. I suspect it’d be much like the equation of the Underpants Gnomes.

Sydney Carton on September 23, 2007 at 10:20 PM

an optimist believes that we live in the best possible world; a pessimist also fears this is so.

lorien1973 on September 23, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Yawn. The more I read about quantum mechanics and these supposed multiple universes, the more I think that these guys are just fanboy comic geeks who can’t get a date, and so rant about multiple universes as a throwback to their childhood.

Hey overreact there much? Did a scientist run over your puppy or something?

e-pirate on September 23, 2007 at 10:24 PM

bbz123 on September 23, 2007 at 10:17 PM

Here here. There was this -super hot- lifeguard at a pool when I was a kid. All I’m asking is that, in another universe I almost drowned and she gave me mouth to mouth. And maybe I copped a feel.

lorien1973 on September 23, 2007 at 10:24 PM

Isn’t this just an extrapolation of the ending of the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy?

TexasDan on September 23, 2007 at 10:25 PM

So does that mean that what you choose to observe or not observe means you can manipulate (in theory) your reality. If you were smart enough you could apply principles that would allow you to sort of steer your own time line?

ronsfi on September 23, 2007 at 10:30 PM

In this way, the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics allows a time traveller to alter the past without producing problems such as the notorious grandfather paradox.

Back to the Future already killed stupid timetravel paradoxes, we don’t need some asshat fabricating a bazillion universes for it.

Darth Executor on September 23, 2007 at 10:30 PM

Hitchhikers Guide is great, but to fully explore this, check out “The Number Of The Beast” by Robert Heinlein. Of all of his tied-together Future stories, ‘Number’ explored the most multiverses. It also had the distinction of being one of his most smutty books. And that’s saying something.

Doug on September 23, 2007 at 10:31 PM

If you want to hear an expert on Parallel Universe,
its Michio Kaku.

canopfor on September 23, 2007 at 10:35 PM

I mean Michi Okaku,sorry.

canopfor on September 23, 2007 at 10:36 PM

all we really need time travel for is to fix our goofed up posts.

Oh, and to invest that penny two millenia ago.

TexasDan on September 23, 2007 at 10:48 PM

By one interpretation, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed.

Hence the need for an atheist to ignore the reality of infinity = ignorance is bliss.

Want proof that their is an eternity?
Cut a carrot in half, for an eternity, and try, to come up with nothing.
This challenge, of course, is relegated now to the smartest guys in the room, of which, chief of these would be Allahpundit and Professor Blather.

(I’ll just watch the show from here, to eternity)

Mcguyver on September 23, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Old joke warning!

Mathematical proof that women are evil:

Women require time and money

Women = time * money

As the saying goes, time is money

Time = money

Therefore,

Women = money * money = money^2

Money is the root of evil

Money = √Evil

Therefore,

Women = (√Evil)2

Conclusion:

Women = Evil

angryoldfatman on September 23, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Just illustrating you can “prove” anything with enough dodgy mathematics.

angryoldfatman on September 23, 2007 at 10:53 PM

Those guys have flown damn clean over the coo-coo’s nest along with any and all parallel coo-coo nests past, present or future.

MB4 on September 23, 2007 at 10:55 PM

Hence the need for an atheist to ignore the reality of infinity = ignorance is bliss.

It’s an article on science but you made it about atheists… how, exactly?

And who out there denies “infinity”?

Want proof that their is an eternity?
Cut a carrot in half, for an eternity, and try, to come up with nothing.

“Eternity” is a measurement of time… how are you using it to measure cutting a carrot in half? Beyond that, if you reduce something by half over and over again, you obviously would never get to “zero” … division by 2 will never equal zero. This has nothing to do with “eternity.”

e-pirate on September 23, 2007 at 10:56 PM

How do I get to the universe where I’m a multi-millionaire model with 6 homes and a fleet of Rolls Royces?

And where I can still get KFC with all that trans-fat goodness…

JetBoy on September 23, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Anything, I guess, to get away from creation theory. All these multiple universe theories and string theories to explain the “big bang” and yet still not one theory as to how it all began.

String theory has multiple universes separated by ‘branes that are a few atoms apart in distance. And the ‘branes move. When a ‘brane collides with another ‘brane you get a “big bang” but it still doesn’t explain the creation of the string. Oh and String theory has ten dimensions, not four as we can observe because the other six are “rolled up” into our universe in such a way as to be undetectable.

Guardian on September 23, 2007 at 11:00 PM

More nutty math humor:

A professor places a (male) math student on one side of the room and a beautiful girl on the other. The prof has the young man cut the distance between himself and the girl in half. So he goes halfway across the room. The cut the distance in half again, so he goes another quarter, then an eight, then a 16th.

“You’ll never reach me” says the girl.

“But I’ll get close enough for all practical purposes” replies the boy.

It’s either a joke about limits or how women are always out of reach of math students. Not sure.

tlynch001 on September 23, 2007 at 11:09 PM

Well, everything is finite.

You can cut a minute in half, and half again, and again…seemingly for an eternity. But that minute does go by, and onto the next.

JetBoy on September 23, 2007 at 11:11 PM

I wonder if what this describes above could explain dreams? IOW, are dreams what actually occur in an alternate universe?

FishFearMe on September 23, 2007 at 11:14 PM

this guy…PIMF

FishFearMe on September 23, 2007 at 11:14 PM

And who out there denies “infinity”?
e-pirate on September 23, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Atheists deny that, anything, exists beyond their understanding of time/space in relation to their own existence.

The idea that there is no infinity, is so absurd, and takes more faith to believe in, than believing in an eternal existence for any being, because it simply changes form and therefore, never, just disappears.
Therefore, one’s conscious existence, here, simply takes another, but, never lessor form.

The chopping in half of a carrot, for an eternity, and still end up with something, is so profoundly true.

The study of quantum physics, just barely coming into mainstream, now, is for once and all, proving just that.

Below the atomic level, is a whole, another, ever-deepening level, of sub-atomic particles, which really comes down to, being nothing but energy, thoughts, actions, plans, intentions, etc. of which, can be broken up, into more pieces, for an ever increasing eternity, yet again.

Parallel universes are - not to be confused with the eternal existence – are hypothetical at the most, and bunk, at the least.

Mcguyver on September 23, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Atheists deny that, anything, exists beyond their understanding of time/space in relation to their own existence.

There are two flaws in your statement: 1) assuming all atheists share a universal belief in the existance of infinity, and 2) conflating “everything in the universe can be explained by a common set of theories/laws even if we don’t understand them right now” and “we don’t believe in anything we don’t understand.”

The chopping in half of a carrot, for an eternity, and still end up with something, is so profoundly true.

Again, nobody disagreed with you on this one. But your argument didn’t prove anything. Cutting a carrot has nothing to do with eternity.

Parallel universes are – not to be confused with the eternal existence – are hypothetical at the most, and bunk, at the least.

I think the whole point is that parallel universes are hypothetical. Regardless, your sentence says not to confuse parallel universes and “eternal existance” which seems overly convienent. Why isn’t “eternal existance” also “at best hypothetical, at bunk at worst.” There certainly is no more or no less proof for either one.

e-pirate on September 23, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Well, everything is finite.

You can cut a minute in half, and half again, and again…seemingly for an eternity. But that minute does go by, and onto the next.

All your example proves is that a minute is finite, which makes sense, as one minute is a finite measure of time.

e-pirate on September 23, 2007 at 11:30 PM

The idea that there is no infinity, is so absurd, and takes more faith to believe in, than believing in an eternal existence for any being,

There is an idea of infinity, but no actual infinity in any real sense, just like there is an idea of a perfect circle, but not perfect circles. One could talk about points in space as being of infinite accuracy, but there is no way to get at that accuracy, and it’s not clear that space isn’t quantized anyway.

Parallel universes are – not to be confused with the eternal existence – are hypothetical at the most, and bunk, at the least.

Mcguyver on September 23, 2007 at 11:15 PM

I’d like to think so, but the guy the article is talking about is the inventor of quantum computing. That may not may not be practical, but it is very serious science.

I think the whole point is that parallel universes are hypothetical.

e-pirate on September 23, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Some seriously credentialed people take it very seriously. It’s hard to get your head around, but so is relativity and quantum theory when you first see it.

So would there be a universe where God didn’t say “Let there be light”?

pedestrian on September 23, 2007 at 11:31 PM

Cutting a carrot has nothing to do with eternity.
e-pirate on September 23, 2007 at 11:27 PM

The illustration, is to show, that one cannot destroy or be destroyed, into non-existence, from it’s original form.
It must always retain it’s original form/function and never be made less.

Mcguyver on September 23, 2007 at 11:32 PM

The problem with this is that the man in the accident died in one universe but lived in the other. So if the one who lives has a child that child does not exist in the other universe. There would have to be a lot of universes for there to be enough different ones for each person because they would not exist in each universe. Their parents may marry someone different so that they don’t exist in every case.

Rose on September 23, 2007 at 11:36 PM

So would there be a universe where God didn’t say “Let there be light”?

pedestrian on September 23, 2007 at 11:31 PM

Yeah the second guy replied “who said that?”

e-pirate on September 23, 2007 at 11:37 PM

The theory was designed of a practical accounting for how the universe might work, but the philosophically minded love it since it involves parallel universes and alternative realities, even if these alternative realities don’t exist for us in this reality.

Believe it or not, there’s a George W. Bush connection to this: Hugh Everett’s son is the sole permanent member of a critically acclaimed one-hit band, Eels. A CD of theirs was passed out (as a matter of course, not with their permission) in a Democratic fundraiser in 2000. Bush’s 2000 campaign then attacked the CD as an example of how “wrong and corrupt” “Hollywood” has become, targeting the album for its cover and contents. The cover was an illustration from a vintage children’s book the younger Everett found amongst his childhood belongings after the death of his mother, Hugh’s wife. The content of the album was a collection of introspective songs about overcoming the deaths of his parents and sister, an adult theme with adult language. A Bush staffer clearly thought the four-letter words contrasted with the children’s-book cover and was an attempt to “corrupt” youth. The last time I heard something that politically tone-deaf from a Republican campaign was when Reagan called “Born in the U.S.A.,” a song about an angry unemployed veteran at a dead end in life, a “message of hope.” (Eels’ music, by the way, is even more amazing than Springsteen’s, and, unlike Springsteen, the band has successfully avoided the pitfall many musicians have fallen into lately: Making music about and concerns highlighting how “Bush sucks.”)

Maybe the Internet will help the 2008 campaigns to be a bit more savvy. At least the Republican ones.

calbear on September 23, 2007 at 11:40 PM

There would have to be a lot of universes for there to be enough different ones for each person because they would not exist in each universe. Their parents may marry someone different so that they don’t exist in every case.

Rose on September 23, 2007 at 11:36 PM

The number of universes required by this theory is so much vaster than that. It says that any possible outcome results in a new universe branching out. But quantum randomness is happening constantly in every atom and every particle. Every instant an atom can emit a photon or not, in many difference ways. If I understand it, this theory would say that universes are being spawned of by each atom in the universe continuously. There are also vastly more virtual particles that come and go constantly at every point in space in the universe through quantum fluctuations.

So if you believe in Big Science, and this proof is real, then that’s what you need to have faith in. Or you can believe in a God that makes the one true universe happen. Who’s side is Occam’s razor on now?

pedestrian on September 23, 2007 at 11:50 PM

Hillary can win Republican votes, and she’s really warm and fuzzy.

Entelechy on September 23, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Think of the infinite possibilities,Liberals could
go in and out of the parallel universes,and screw them all up.

canopfor on September 23, 2007 at 11:55 PM

Don’t know why this discussion reminds me of it, but here goes (to the best of my memory):

Imagine a giant sphere of iron, reaching to the clouds. Imagine a lone dove flying around the sphere, occasionally brushing its wing lightly against the sphere. When that dove has worn the sphere down to nothingness is when I vote Democrat!

Or words to that effect. Anyone know the source?

stonemeister on September 23, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Does this mean that my wife, in one of these universes will, while whispering to her friends, hold her hands apart instead of just her thumb and forefinger? Then I’m all for it.

Limerick on September 24, 2007 at 12:02 AM

If you were smart enough you could apply principles that would allow you to sort of steer your own time line?

ronsfi on September 23, 2007 at 10:30 PM

Yeah, it’s called personal choice and responsibility!

Ordinary1 on September 24, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Yeah, it’s called personal choice and responsibility!

Ordinary1 on September 24, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Yeah, but every time you make a good choice, there’s still going to be another universe where you make the bad choice. Guess which universe you wind up in.

pedestrian on September 24, 2007 at 12:18 AM

If you have constant alternate possibilities for every time an electron goes around an atom’s nucleus, or a car goes through an intersection, or a swimmer gets mouth to mouth, etc., etc., etc. You would need infinite Universes (or very nearly) to contain literally billions of possible outcomes to billions of actions or inactions every second on or planet alone, not to mention across the rest of the cosmos. My God is big enough to handle all that. Still, while it was fun to think about as a teenager, and still kinda is, I guess I don’t see the practicality of it. If you can prove that there are nearly infinite alternate realities, you still can’t go there, nor would you want to, I wouldn’t think.

Ordinary1 on September 24, 2007 at 12:22 AM

Guess which universe you wind up in.

pedestrian on September 24, 2007 at 12:18 AM

The one you’re in!

Ordinary1 on September 24, 2007 at 12:23 AM

Parallel universe? Does that mean Osama doesn’t have a beard and is Jewish?

baldilocks on September 24, 2007 at 12:26 AM

Still, while it was fun to think about as a teenager, and still kinda is, I guess I don’t see the practicality of it. If you can prove that there are nearly infinite alternate realities, you still can’t go there, nor would you want to, I wouldn’t think.

Ordinary1 on September 24, 2007 at 12:22 AM

Prof Deutsch invented quantum computers, which or may not be commercially practical someday, but small ones do exist now, and claims that they are proof of multiple universes because the result of a quantum calculation depends on different versions of the computation going on in different universes. I still don’t believe that, since it could just be part of the math of this universe, but I haven’t seen this proof.

pedestrian on September 24, 2007 at 12:29 AM

So every time I buy a lottery ticket, there’s a universe in which the ticket wins me millions of dollars. In fact, I don’t even have to buy the ticket; just think about whether I want to buy one or not.

So why am I experiencing this universe instead of one of the infinitude in which I have so much money I don’t mind the extra $200 for an iPhone? Because those universes are on the cutting room floor.

I’ve reconciled God’s omnipotence and omniscience with free will, and explained the mechanism for evolution that appears completely random while being intelligently directed. We, the actors in this play, are completely free to make our own choices, but not the consequences of those choices. We can even shoot the same scene over and over, and film alternate endings. But we don’t decide what gets to go on the screen.

That’s the Director’s Cut.

The Monster on September 24, 2007 at 12:44 AM

I’ve reconciled God’s omnipotence and omniscience with free will, and explained the mechanism for evolution that appears completely random while being intelligently directed. We, the actors in this play, are completely free to make our own choices, but not the consequences of those choices. We can even shoot the same scene over and over, and film alternate endings. But we don’t decide what gets to go on the screen.

By definition, that’s not free will.

e-pirate on September 24, 2007 at 12:47 AM

By definition, that’s not free will.

e-pirate on September 24, 2007 at 12:47 AM

The Monster seems to be claiming that scheme allows him to have free will to make choices, but that some Director choices which freely made choices get to go forward. Basically a giant Groundhog Day.

Can someone tell me why people believe in free will? I haven’t ever seen even a definition of it that doesn’t have contradictions. I know of reasons people want it, but that’s different than actually having it.

pedestrian on September 24, 2007 at 1:02 AM

And, as I will never have the opportunity to exist in any of these alternate universes, this means what to me?

wiserbud on September 24, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Yawn. The more I read about quantum mechanics and these supposed multiple universes, the more I think that these guys are just fanboy comic geeks who can’t get a date, and so rant about multiple universes as a throwback to their childhood. Whatever happened to replication, falsifiability, and the scientific method? I could write an equation “proving” that multiple universes exist. I suspect it’d be much like the equation of the Underpants Gnomes.

Sydney Carton on September 23, 2007 at 10:20 PM

In your dreams.

And “Yawn,” is the lazy reply of someone who doesn’t understand what he just read.

Christoph on September 24, 2007 at 1:09 AM

By definition, that’s not free will.

e-pirate on September 24, 2007 at 12:47 AM

Huh? I can choose to buy the ticket or not. That’s free will. I don’t get to choose which numbers win.

The Monster on September 24, 2007 at 1:11 AM

Huh? I can choose to buy the ticket or not. That’s free will. I don’t get to choose which numbers win.

The Monster on September 24, 2007 at 1:11 AM

But your scenario as written said that the Director already knows whether or not you buy the ticket, and whether or not you win the money… unless I misunderstood it?

And, as I will never have the opportunity to exist in any of these alternate universes, this means what to me?

wiserbud on September 24, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Who said we’ll never get a chance to visit them? Didn’t you read Timeline? ;)

e-pirate on September 24, 2007 at 1:21 AM

Step 1: Say that there’s multiple universes.

Step 2: ?

Step 3: Profit!

That about sums up this article.

Sydney Carton on September 24, 2007 at 1:29 AM

For those who actually believe this news article says anything, tell me: What is the “new research” that supports this idiotic theory? Has it been replicated? Falsified? What other methods of the scientific method were used to confirm it?

Go ahead, wonder away. You won’t get anywhere fast. The joke is that people consider this sort of fantasy science. It’s got about the same sort of rigor as a proof on how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.

Sydney Carton on September 24, 2007 at 1:42 AM

There’s real science behind this. It’s not like some physicist said “wouldn’t it be cool if there were multiple universes?” It came out of mathematical-based theories that were backed by experimentation and/or observation. You know, the scientific method, as opposed to consensus.

stonemeister on September 24, 2007 at 1:54 AM

There is no science behind this at all. It is entirely wishful thinking. Mathematical theories backed by observation? Not any of a kind which provide evidence of the unseen.

Of course it’s attractive, our human appetites all want “more”, and any theory that offers the concept of things turning out better than they have raises our curiosity.

Don’t fall into the trap of wishful thinking. It’s the bottom-line difference between the thinking of the right and the left. The left is all about how they wish the world worked, and how to make the most of how that makes them feel. The right accepts that we must deal with the world as it is, and how to make the most of reality.

There is a Creator of this one universe, like it or not. If He has created more universes, we’ll not know it while alive. Speculation is never useless, but when you know how the story ends, hoping for a way to step out of the story and make changes borders on insanity.

Freelancer on September 24, 2007 at 5:13 AM

Oh and String theory has ten dimensions, not four as we can observe because the other six are “rolled up” into our universe in such a way as to be undetectable.

Guardian on September 23, 2007 at 11:00 PM

I thought I heard that M Theory, with eleven dimensions, is fashionable in the best circles, now. What’s being spread around now is that String Theory is so 2006.

It’s important for me to know because I can’t leave the house with last year’s wave mechanics theory.

jaime on September 24, 2007 at 5:35 AM

You mean this guy got laid last night afterall?

right2bright on September 24, 2007 at 7:12 AM

I hope, in some of the other many worlds, I’ve thought of a smarter comment than this one.

Kralizec on September 24, 2007 at 7:28 AM

Freelancer on September 24, 2007 at 5:13 AM

I think we’re not much improved by your advice.

Kralizec on September 24, 2007 at 7:37 AM

So are we talkin’ Bizzarro world where Dems combat Islam, love the ASU and Murtha really is a hero?

Hening on September 24, 2007 at 8:07 AM

Well, everything is finite.

You can cut a minute in half, and half again, and again…seemingly for an eternity. But that minute does go by, and onto the next.

JetBoy on September 23, 2007 at 11:11 PM

Yet you can only fold a piece of paper in half 7 times, go figure.

Kahuna on September 24, 2007 at 8:51 AM

The best time travel story of all time is “All You Zombies-”

By Robert A. Heinlein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_You_Zombies%E2%80%94

(Spoiler warning!)

N. O'Brain on September 24, 2007 at 8:55 AM

There is no science behind this at all. It is entirely wishful thinking. Mathematical theories backed by observation? Not any of a kind which provide evidence of the unseen.

There is a Creator of this one universe, like it or not.

Freelancer on September 24, 2007 at 5:13 AM

So you dismiss alternative dimensions because “there’s no science behind it,” “there’s no mathematical theories backed by observation” and “no evidence” and then… claim there’s one Creator, based on what exactly?

e-pirate on September 24, 2007 at 8:55 AM

….as one minute is a finite measure of time.

e-pirate on September 23, 2007 at 11:30 PM

It depends on how fast you’re going.

BacaDog on September 24, 2007 at 8:58 AM

Sep 23, 2007 10:15 PM by Allahpundit

I own many iPhones.

Does this mean you’ll quit whining about it?

Troy Rasmussen on September 24, 2007 at 9:01 AM

Yeah, I saw this episode too. Data is my favorite character.

Coronagold on September 24, 2007 at 9:17 AM

Okay, so on some alternate universe, there is a wiserbud who has made all the right decisions, all of his life.

I hate that bastard.

wiserbud on September 24, 2007 at 9:20 AM

The last time I heard something that politically tone-deaf from a Republican campaign was when Reagan called “Born in the U.S.A.

An odd way to get to this topic, but why not? Today when putting down papers for the dogs to poop on, I made sure the pic of Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters was on top. Apparently the Foo played some shows and toured a bit with candidate John F. Kerry only in response to the “misappropriating” of their song “There Goes My Hero” at some conservative rally.

I remember Grohl saying something to that effect in an interview: he really didn’t know much about Kerry, he was just reacting against the other guy. Whatever. My house is now a Foo-free zone.

saint kansas on September 24, 2007 at 9:43 AM

So, now it is:

Islamists: The impossible is possible, if Allah wills it at any given moment! I could get laid!

Dodgy Scientists: The impossible is possible, in some alternate universe, maybe! With different rules and stuff. I could get laid!

Maybe Freud was right about some stuff.

RiverCocytus on September 24, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Maybe Freud was right about some stuff.

RiverCocytus on September 24, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Sometimes the Universe you’re in is the Universe you’re in :-)

Ordinary1 on September 24, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Atheists deny that, anything, exists beyond their understanding of time/space in relation to their own existence.

This is your strawman. Atheists do not believe in the existence of a supreme being. Period.

There are many things that we do not understand. We just don’t invent god to try to explain them. We look for the real answers.

JayHaw Phrenzie on September 24, 2007 at 10:50 AM

So does that mean that what you choose to observe or not observe means you can manipulate (in theory) your reality. If you were smart enough you could apply principles that would allow you to sort of steer your own time line?

ronsfi on September 23, 2007 at 10:30 PM

Maybe more thsn The Hitchhiker’s Guide we should be talking about this phenomenon in relationship to The Secret by Rhonda Byrne. Maybe we have finally stepped into the Twilight Zone. do do… do do…do do….do do.

Ernest on September 24, 2007 at 10:50 AM

I didn’t know this was an Ultimate X-Men chatroom!

woodman on September 24, 2007 at 11:15 AM

angryoldfatman on September 23, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Actually, the proper quote is “the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.” Money is not inherently evil.

Esthier on September 24, 2007 at 11:43 AM

JayHaw Phrenzie on September 24, 2007 at 10:50 AM

In looking for the answers, one cannot be cognizant, of more, than what one is able to judge from the visible.
Quantum physics, has allowed us to see further, below the subatomic level, even though, prior to this new insight, we instinctively knew it had to be there, based on what we know about science.
Since, our, consciousness can judge, that cutting a carrot – or any other substance – in half, can be done into an infinity and never be destroyed, it, our consciousness, itself, has to be at least as superior or better than what it judges.

Mcguyver on September 24, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Since, our, consciousness can judge, that cutting a carrot – or any other substance – in half, can be done into an infinity and never be destroyed, it, our consciousness, itself, has to be at least as superior or better than what it judges.

What kind of knife are you going to use to cut the atoms of a carrot?

pedestrian on September 24, 2007 at 12:56 PM

What kind of knife are you going to use to cut the atoms of a carrot?
pedestrian on September 24, 2007 at 12:56 PM

It’s called an atom smasher.

Mcguyver on September 24, 2007 at 1:30 PM

One thing that strikes me about this multiverse theory is that it is far more antithetical to Judaeo-Christianity, indeed to any theistic religion I can think of, than Evolution and the Big Bang.
I am a theologically conservative Christian and I can see how God could use the Big Bang and Evolution to create the Universe as we know it today. The Infinite Multiverse theory, however-there’s no way.

I have my own alternate theory to explain the Quantum Physics findings, but since I am not a physicist it has zero chance of going anywhere.

Lancer on September 24, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Oh, and you can’t just keep cutting a carrot in half indefinitely. Eventually you get to the atoms, in which case it is no longer a carrot, and then you reach the elementary particles that cannot be cut any further, no matter how powerful your atom-smasher.

Lancer on September 24, 2007 at 7:11 PM

and then you reach the elementary particles that cannot be cut any further, no matter how powerful your atom-smasher.
Lancer on September 24, 2007 at 7:11 PM

The study of quantum physics is revealing, that, below the atomic level, is a whole, another, ever-deepening level, of sub-atomic particles, the first being light/energy, which of course can be split, and then further beyond the light/energy particles, there’s intentions, thoughts, actions, plans, etc. of which, can be broken up through intellectual debate into more pieces, and, at the rate debates like these are going, they, can go on for an eternity.

Mcguyver on September 24, 2007 at 10:06 PM

Purple crayons, purple crayons, purple crayons…

tgillian on September 25, 2007 at 10:16 AM