|
| Author | Topic: No priviledged frames of reference for parallel universes |
|
Yul Tolbert (Moderator) |
posted 8/20/04 3:44 PM
n another message board (which I don't belong to anymore), I mentioned some samples of alternate outcomes to the 9-11 attacks stating that there are an infinite number of possible outcomes for that and all other events. One person in the group responded to that by claiming that there aren't quite an inifinite number of possible events because "the Americans would not (have) used weapons of mass destruction against Afghanistan unless they had been used against her." In my view, that claim this utterly, utterly, utterly wrong. As far as I know, there's nothing in the laws of physics that says that the U.S. would never launch an unproked attack on another country. If anyone can prove there's a physical process, a natural phenomenon that would prevent the U.S. from launching unprovoked attacks, then I'll believe it. However, there aren't supposed to be priviledged frames of reference in this universe and all other universes that follow the same physical laws. The parallel universes that exist (assuming they exist) include ones you may like and ones you may not like. No one universe is better or worse than another in sciencetic terms. But "good" and "bad" universes can exist in terms of human perception. I created this message board partly because I want to discuss a wide range of possiblities in alternate reality concepts. I don't want to deal with claims that the universe we inhabit is the "best" universe, or the "real" universe, or the center of the multiverse. If I can't get that request made, then certain people may have to be banned from this message board. Hopefully, it won't come to that. |
| julian w thompson |
posted 8/21/04 12:26 AM
I agree that there is no scientific reason why. Sociologically , yes. BUT in parallel universe theory any action is as likely as any other action. j |
| Toby Peregrino |
posted 9/1/04 6:34 PM
"the Americans would not (have) used weapons of mass destruction against Afghanistan unless they had been used against her." Why not? We used them on Japan (they didn't use them on us) |
|
|