Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:01:09 UTC No. 16581537

Not really a multiverse, just a result of an infinite universe. If (currently unknown whetever this is true) the universe is infinite, yes it's completely possible that an infinite amount of any subsets of that infinity exist.

THOUGHEVER, any other multiverse theory (or even several others) can still simultaneously be true.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:09:33 UTC No. 16581561

>>16581465
Two things that are identical are just one thing.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:15:29 UTC No. 16581580

>>16581465
Multiverse theory, as pictured in the documentary game Mario 64 and its half button presses.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:27:30 UTC No. 16581590

It does not follow at all that if there are infinitely many of something that it also should contain duplicates.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:32:18 UTC No. 16581596

>>16581590
If there's a finite number of possible states for a given system, given a sufficiently big number of instances of that system, there will be duplicates due to the Pigeonhole principle. That is, if you accept the extremely dubious premise that two fundamentally indistinguishable instances aren't just the same instance.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:46:18 UTC No. 16581618

>>16581596
Even if we consider an infinite number of states, there would still exist regions of space that are almost identical

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:04:48 UTC No. 16581647

>>16581596
>>16581561
>Two things that are identical are just one thing.
>the extremely dubious premise that two fundamentally indistinguishable instances aren't just the same instance.
wrong

if you could be cloned right down to every quantum state, there would still be two of you, with each having their own consciousness

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:15:48 UTC No. 16581656

>>16581647
>if you could be cloned right down to every quantum state
It's fundamentally impossible.

> there would still be two of you
Oh, really? There would be two of me where? Would they be occupying the same exact space relative to the rest of reality? :^)

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:16:58 UTC No. 16581662

>>16581656
>It's fundamentally impossible.
doesn't have to be to quantum state. lol, that's cope

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:19:10 UTC No. 16581669

>>16581662
>>16581647
>down to every quantum state
>doesn't have to be to quantum state
Mongoloid.


> there would still be two of you
Oh, really? There would be two of me where? Would they be occupying the same exact space relative to the rest of reality? :^)

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:20:50 UTC No. 16581672

>>16581669
>>16581662 me
NTA just chimed in. you are not the same quantum state one second to the other yet it's still the same you. whoever came with the "must be quantum state" retardation is a dimwit lmao

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:22:43 UTC No. 16581673

>>16581672
>it's a different system in a different state and with different spatial relationships to everything else but it's still identical despite having distinguishing qualities

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:22:53 UTC No. 16581675

>>16581669
there's also people who are killed for up to one hour, chunks of their brain are taken out, then they're resuscitated and it's still the same them. clearly different quantum state between death and resurrection, and somehow it's still them. fucking amazing isn't it?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:23:34 UTC No. 16581676

>>16581675
Schizobabble.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:23:54 UTC No. 16581677

>>16581673
>>16581675
stop being a moron. you get forked from the moment of copying the brainstate.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:25:25 UTC No. 16581678

>>16581676
>everything I don't understand is schizobabble
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_hypothermic_circulatory_arrest
stop being retard

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:26:00 UTC No. 16581679

>>16581647
>>16581656
>>16581669
>>16581672
By quantum state I meant that it would be an exact copy down to the smallest detail. Obviously they would deviate in an instant, but they would still be two separate entities even when completely identical.

>Would they be occupying the same exact space relative to the rest of reality?
Obviously not since that's not possible. Just like in a quilted multiverse where any replicas of any systems wouldn't be in the same space.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:28:36 UTC No. 16581681

>>16581679
>by quantum state i meant not quantum state
Cope.

>they would obviously be the same despite every single particle being in a different position making it distinguishable from its counterpart in the other system
Turbo-cope.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:29:41 UTC No. 16581682

>>16581679
>Just like in a quilted multiverse where any replicas of any systems wouldn't be in the same space.
In the "quilted multiverse" schizo fantasy there is no absolute position to speak of. They aren't located anywhere relative to each other.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:32:55 UTC No. 16581686

>>16581561
>>16581596
>Two things that are identical are just one thing
>two fundamentally indistinguishable instances are just the same instance
>>16581656
>two identical clones of a person are fundamentally impossible

so... what's your point? on the one hand you're arguing that two things that are identical are basically one thing, on the you're saying that two identical things are impossible

so how does that relate to an infinite universe, e.g this thread's topic?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:35:18 UTC No. 16581688

>>16581682
Retard, quilted multiverse is not schizo fantasy. If the universe is infinite, which it very might well be, there can be entire hubble volumes identical to each other.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:37:38 UTC No. 16581690

>>16581686
>two things that are identical are basically one thing
Yes. If we're talking about two distinct and separate universes that are identical, we're actually just talking about the same universe.

>on the you're saying that two identical things are impossible
This is the same claim, just framed differently, to address the hypothetical cloning of an object INSIDE a given universe, instead of an entire cloned universe that supposedly exists in an indeterminate "somewhere else", such that the positions of its particles can't be meaningfully compared to the positions of the originals.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:39:23 UTC No. 16581691

>>16581688
You're a word-thinking midwit who keeps confusing himself by changing the meaning of "universe" in mid-sentence.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:49:13 UTC No. 16581701

>>16581691
Did you even read the OP? We are talking about a single infinite universe that is simply branded as the "quilted multiverse". There is only one universe discussed ITT:

Might be you who is confused here

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Feb 2025 18:52:38 UTC No. 16581705

>>16581701
>Did you even read the OP?
Yes. It literally says: given the infinite size of the universe, there is an identical universe beyond the universe, which is incoherent schizobabble stemming from a word-thinking midwit confusing himself.

God here, I get no respect at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 09:33:43 UTC No. 16582327

Multi smulti, there's but 1 universe, and it encompasses all of existence