Infinite Vacation #3

[sherkahn]

So the adventures of Mark in the multiverse continue. Things happen, good things, bad things, VERY BAD NSFW things that will surely p.o. a few readers, but I on this point, I will focus on this one big reveal. I'll skip the philosophical pages and get to the point.

We who deal with the ideas of a multiverse should be well acquainted with some of the concepts, but for those of you not yet attuned to the mind expanding concepts or leaps of logic, get ready to have your mind blown.

4 pages, per the rule, behind the cut.

And for those of you who HAVE read it and have a better grasp of the concepts being tossed around, feel free to correct this humble one and my paraphrasing.



... or not.

The memo from the Infinite Vacation corporation lab geeks, to their managers.

"There is only ONE universe."




Discusssions about Schroedinger's cat, and of the duals states of the cat's life/death condition are explored until awareness/observation is made, and then everything settles on one and only one reality. Every choice/decision splits off into other choice multiplied by infinite observations, etcetera.

The Many Worlds is the box, the multitude of undefined options and changes made real "before" observation is made and a choice is decided. And when the course of action is finally selected, the rest of the possible existing multiverses will collapse/never have been/never will be.

So why Mark?




There can be only one.

Comments

[bmaryott]

...Maybe it's me, but the reasoning reminds me of a Chick tracts...

[sherkahn]

I know I am going to regret this, but I'll ask anyways.

Care to elaborate?

[bmaryott]

I can't point to one thing, but it has the serious feel of "I drew my conclusion, and chose a path of reasoning that was internally consistent, and didn't look beyond what would lead me there." And it's a bit of "We had these conclusions because it's what people wanted." and "They're definitive, even though we use "IF our findings are correct..." in their logic flow - it drives me nuts in stuff that needs has great writing and plots, but wasn't "hard written." Too much "ignore the man behind the curtains!"

In other words, standard fiction logic because it leads where the story needs to go.

(Well, you asked what I meant...)

Holy hell

[kangrado.livejournal.com]

You weren't kidding about that NSFW, P.O. some readers bit. I was definitely P.O.ed. Was loving the series until that... trip into unnecessary-ville.

[venatosapiens]

So...I don't get it. Help?

[sherkahn]

Let's look at a blank message field, like this for example. In that split second before your mind tells you to type in a keystroke that registers on the screen as a letter, there is an infinite number of possibilties of what might show up on the screen. One universe you typed in "I still don't understand." another universe you typed in "i still don't understand" with a lower case "I". Another, the screen characters show up as green and white, not black and white. Another universe the letter "j" stands in for "I". Another, the keyboard is organic. Another universe you have four fingers in each hand, not five. Yet another, you type in "Now I get it".

In that split second of existence between what your senses tell you is a blank screen and that moment of awareness that you want to type something... ANYTHING, or even leave it blank, infinite universes have occurred. The potential universes have had histories and ancient pasts; and far distant futures; and all have collapsed as "what ifs" as you, the Observer, make a choice as to what something should BE, and therefore that something becomes REAL and becomes THE NEXT MOMENT until a new/next decision is made.

In Mark's reality, these potential universes can be crossed because in an infinite possibilities existences there is exist a universe where cross to others is possible. But again, those are just blips, temporary things that never have been/never where.

By making Mark there test subject to study the effects of the collapse of their universe, to see how Mark #196.0's awareness affects his own reality, they have made him part of the key to some big decision by Mark or someone else that will erase these multiverses from ever truly having existed. He is the Cat in Schroedinger's box, with each of his possibilities (alternate selves) running out.
Again, think of the Cat and the Poison in Schrodinger's box. With each passing second the possibility of the cat being dead becomes a reality, and that the cat is alive narrows down. Only until you the Observer become aware of the contents within the box and see if the toxin has taken effect does the potential existence cease to be.

Now expand being alive/dead to all of Mark's potential possibilities, and you finally get the idea. As his choices narrow down, the multiverse collapse gets that much closer to non-existence, and the One True Universe will rise from that decision made by Mark (or FOR Mark, or OF Mark), as we do not know if he is the Observer or the Observed.

As to the end game of the story, I can't tell if the writer wants to kill Mark in order to stop the collapse of the multiverses (by making sure that The Decision is not made) OR if he wants to speed up the process of getting to The Decision and thereby achieve the One Universe.

[tzipwich]

"In an infinite variation of universes, there must be a universe where there is only one universe."

Why? Just because there's an infinite number of somethings, doesn't mean that everything conceivable exists within the group.

For example, the group of rational numbers is infinite. However, √2 is a real number that is not part of that group.

(I know, I know, it's a comic book.)

[icon_uk]

Because a "range" (such as rational numbers) can be infinite and exclude things, but "variations" seems to preclude anything being truly impossible.

[tzipwich]

But lots of things are truly impossible. There can't be a universe where the sentence "This sentence is a lie" is either true or false, because it contradicts itself by definition. If something is just very improbable, then sure, an infinite of varieties will probably cover it, but something that is impossible by definition is...by definition, impossible.

[icon_uk]

You're assuming that all universes follow our laws of science and, well... reality. There may well be a universe where pi =3 because the physical laws there say that it is. To us, impossible, unimaginable, unfathomable, but there, it's the norm (and a quick "Hail Cthulhu!" probably wouldn't go amiss)

[tzipwich]

I don't think I'm making that assumption. I don't mind if there's a reality where the physics make it so the area of a circle is exactly 3 times the radius squared. [I'm not positive because I don't have an advanced mathematics degree, but] I don't think that's impossible, just untrue according to the physics of our universe. I'm not talking about things that are physically untrue, I'm talking about things that are logically impossible because they contradict themselves.

For example, if the following three things are true:

1) Pi is the constant that, when you multiply it by the radius of a circle squared, always equals the area of the circle.
2) Pi=3.
3) 3 != 3.1415926 etc. (the pi of our universe)

Then, the forumula for the area of a circle in the other universe cannot be A=[pi from our universe]*r^2. It is absolutely impossible; it cannot be true; it is self-contradictory. I can buy physics changing from universe to universe, but I don't buy that logic can.

(It's possible that I may have missed a loophole and my proof may be no good. However, if that's the case, the axioms can be played with to fix the proof, and the point still stands.)

[drexer]

You should define Pi by the ratio between the circumference and the diameter of the circle. When defining it by the area you're assuming the determinant of the change of coordinates matrix is the same across universes, or that the R^3 parametrization is the same(if you don't change the coordinates).

Other than that yeah, this explanation is quite annoying for the same reason that most of those always are. Trying to make abstract and mathematical definitions to fit into anthropic parameters. The idea of infinite multiple universes is based on the concepts of quantum mechanics, and trying to plainly try to tie those into the concept of a human or an event is just *headdesk*.

And if people are going to say that the laws of physics might vary to a thousand of impossible to guess configurations across the multiverse, then it's just like waving the 'goddidit' card, and it's only an exercise in justifying whatever they want to justify.

[tzipwich]

Thanks for the correction!

[thokstar]

Pi can be defined in ways that don't require the existence of a universe at all (except to have an observer to make the definition).

It's possible to have a universe where the abstract definition of pi doesn't have any practical/real world purpose whatsoever. But that wouldn't change the value of pi.

[icon_uk]

I thought that Pi was solely defined by the relationship of the diameter of a circle to it's radius, and that it had no abstract definition or value in that respect.

[sherkahn]

In our universe, yes. But in a reality with different rules of physics /existing it may not be so.

[icon_uk]

Not sure that works, it's the relationship which defines pi, if it's not that, then it's not pi, it's something else.

My original point that in this other dimension c over r might not equal 3.14159...

[thokstar]

The original definition is in terms of the ratio of diameter to circumference, but one can still use that definition without geometry, by defining both a 2 dimensional flat plane and a circle in that plane abstractly and asking questions about that abstract idea.

There are also lots of other properties that uniquely define pi, and those don't require geometry. For example, e^(pi*i)=-1 gives a way to define pi abstractly, and doesn't require a circle, just the abstract concept of power series.

[nyadnar17]

Thank you for saying what I was thinking. I think a lot of writers fall into the "vocabulary trap". They take the general image a word conjures instead of its specific meaning. The very facts that there is a multiverse, those multiverses can interact with each other, and the multiverse still exists precludes every conceivable outcome existing. Sure every possible outcome might exist, but not every conceivable one.