JaKiri Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 ok, how r they gonna be separated without the use of distance, huh? Why do they have to be seperated? As I said, you're stuck around the concept of the universes occupying some place in a metaverse like stars in a galaxy (or somesuch). This doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 then how r they gonna be not separated and still be different entities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 then how r they gonna be not separated and still be different entities? Why do they have to be? Two electrons can occupy the same space and still be different entities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 look at your eirlier definition of universe and u tell me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 look at your eirlier definition of universe and u tell me Why do they have to be seperated by some kind of dimension for one to be distinct from another? I'm not getting your justification for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Example: Siamese twins. They occupy the same space (sort of) but each one of them is a seperate human. They are not all one person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 That didn't really help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 how can they be distinct without being separated by your definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 how can they be distinct without being separated by your definition? They can be distinct and still not be 'seperated' you know; as I said, look at the electrons. This is kind of axiomic if you're not assuming a dimensional system which the universes coexist in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 but electrons r particles, not universes wat u r saying is like if i say i can read, so my dog can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I don't think so. Be sure you understand what he is saying before you reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 but electrons r particles' date=' not universes wat u r saying is like if i say i can read, so my dog can[/quote'] What I'm saying is that since there is a prior example of something being able to perform the task called 'reading', there is a decresed unlikelyhood of something else sharing that property. For instance, noone on this board can teleport. This affects our hypothesis of the chances of people being able to teleport, reducing them significantly. Everyone on this forum can read, however, so with no prior knowledge of people you can say that the ability to read is entirely within the bounds of possibility as a property you could assign to a person. To use your rather idiotic example, what I'm saying is that because you can read, it's therefore not impossible that your dog can too, with no other relevent data. The point about electrons was that it is possible for things to coexist in the same space and still be distinct, however as a point in my argument it was fairly irrelevent, because you still haven't answered my point about the existance of dimensions being an unwarrented assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 There is no "space" for the "universes" to coinhabit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Except, maybe, this universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I dont think he understands yet that they can share the same space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 how can two "spaces" fit in one "space" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I found this article, that may answer that question, check it out: http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000&pageNumber=1&catID=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 wat happened to the "no string theory bcuz it hasn't been proved yet?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I thought that the 'string/superstring theory' was replaced by the M-theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 wat happened to the "no string theory bcuz it hasn't been proved yet?" Given I neither suggested nor endorsed the link, I don't see how something someone else does in any way relates to my argument. Re: 'There is no "space" for the "universes" to coinhabit.' Yes, that's what I've been saying (as a possibility) all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 m-theory is part of string theory and vice versa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 how can space and another space take up the same space without being the same entity? expalin it to me. the only thing close to it was that elelctron thing, yet the electrons aren't universes and they r in space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 m-theory is part of string theory and vice versa M-theory is a variety of superstring theory technically, not string theory, and they are not equivilent. Try checking Greene's book again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 how can space and another space take up the same space without being the same entity? They're not 'taking up the same space', because that requires a concept of space to be applicable, strictly speaking. Of course, there still could be a concept of distance and still have 2 things be distinct, see the electrons previously mentioned. expalin it to me. the only thing close to it was that elelctron thing, yet the electrons aren't universes and they r in space. It's called an example. It doesn't have to be a identical, because it's only showing how a given property (in this case distinctiveness whilst sharing the same space) can exist. I explained all this earlier, in my post about the dog and what have you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 ok, my thing about string theory wasnt clear. i meant to say that they are interconnected. electrons and universes have diffferent properties, so what makes you think they can occupy the same space? the only way my chihuahua and i can occupy the same space is if i eat him. see, once u get macroscopic things r different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now