CDs are optical storage, just plastic with tiny bumps. It’s magnetic and solid state storage that can have bit flipping.
Comment on Shrodinger’s Megamind
Carnelian@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This is actually a huge pet peeve of mine. Just because there are an infinite number of possibilities doesn’t mean anything is possible
Let’s investigate the list of natural numbers. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. It stretches on for infinity, but nowhere in this infinite set will you find the number 2.5. Or negative 1. Or countless other examples.
Next let’s consider a warehouse with an infinite number of CDs, each burned with a copy of the Donkey Kong Country soundtrack. Each of these discs are different. They have slight differences in the label, diameter, and flatness, due to manufacturing tolerances. They have different random bits that get flipped sometimes due to solar particle collision and quantum variation, which may eventually make different discs unreadable. They decay over the centuries at different rates, due to temperature and sun exposure differences in the warehouse (climate control for an infinite space is very expensive).
Each of these discs are, materially speaking, completely different from one another. But, from the perspective our or limited human perception, they are for the time being completely interchangeable. Whichever one you select, you will listen to and have the same experience.
This is by far the most likely scenario if we indeed live in a multiverse. An infinite number of earths, with an infinite number of you, lives filled with all the same mistakes and triumphs, all reading this comment together right now.
TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 11 months ago
Carnelian@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Ah, but you see, this example takes place in the universe where CDs are susceptible as well
blackluster117@possumpat.io 11 months ago
I am five parallel universes ahead of you
paddirn@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Whenever I think about the possibility of a Multiverse it just gets so unbelievably convoluted that I can’t believe that that’s how the Universe/Multiverse actually exists. Is the idea that every potential change in every atom or event in the Universe leads to all these other Universes, all co-existing, no matter how small & insignificant the differences? So we’d have a ridiculous number of Universes whose sole difference from ours is that a single atom behaved slightly differently in a rock out in the parking lot. Then multiply that by EVERY possible atom in the entire Universe, all behaving slightly differently.
That’s just physical matter, what about conscious decisions made by living things? So in one Universe I filled my bowl of cereal with X oz of milk VS another universe where I filled it with X+1 oz of milk, and so on. All these micro-decisions that branch out into separate timelines, multiplied by the number of living entities in the Universe, every second of every day.
So are new Universes just constantly springing into existence at every moment in time, connected to every atom and every living thing, just brought about by tiny differences? I write some gobbledygook here: aksfhkashdf in one universe, adshfoasfdoajsidd in another, pooigjmasiodmfas in another, and so on. Multiple universes all suddenly springing into existence based on random key presses? Universes can’t possibly be that “easy” to create can they, all that mass and energy, just poofed into existence, and it’s constantly happening every second? Is mass, energy, and space just meaningless?
Or is it some other more basic set of differences describe the universe, just the starting conditions are different, but from there, each different Universe just proceeds as is, without multiple branching timelines? I’m not smart enough to understand any of it, it just quickly gets so incredibly convoluted and complicated for me to wrap my brain around.
Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 11 months ago
There are a few possibilities:
- All the universes existed from the start. Most just haven’t diverged yet. At any given moment, there are an infinite number of completely identical universes.
- The universes literally split, and some quirk of quantum mechanics makes this actually possible.
- They aren’t universes, they’re timelines. All the universes are in quantum superposition with each other.
- There aren’t actually multiple universes. It’s just acknowledgement of the infinite possibilities. (This is how I like to think of most quantum mechanics, tbh.)
Notorious_handholder@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I think a lot of people assume a multiverse works that way because popular fiction makes it look like it does. However popular fiction is using something more akin to an omniverse (idk if there is an actual agreed scientific definition for a collection of multiple multiverses so Im just using that).
Using your analogy with the donkey kong discs being different universes with slight alterations in the warehouse (multiverse). In an omniverse scenario that you see in popular fiction, next door you’d have another warehouse but instead of donkey kong discs it is mario discs, or maybe donkey kong plushies.
However again that’s all speculative of if there even is a multiverse let alone something larger than that
funkless@lemmy.world 11 months ago
due to the nature of infinity — a la monkeys and typewriters — you could have not only a single CD that due to a catastrophic series of errors is actually something completely different from a CD — but an infinite number of them.
Is it entirely beyond the realms of possibility that an infinitesimally small stroke of luck could create a sentient race of CD people? Except “small” doesn’t make sense in infinity — “small” just means “a less common certainty”
Carnelian@lemmy.world 11 months ago
An infinite series of random letters would of course contain every book, that’s definitionally true.
But infinity itself does not empower the whims of the imagination (indeed this is the entire point). Yes, it is definitely impossible for the warehouse to contain a sentient race of CD people. Polycarbonate plastic simply cannot exhibit any of the qualities of being alive under any circumstances
funkless@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I know I’m nit picking here but that’s the point of examining infinity, but wouldn’t it be foolish to say “there are no examples of hydrogen gas becoming sentient under any circumstances!” because, well, we’re both sentient decendants of a reaction between two or more hydrogen atoms.
Yes the conditions that led from hydrogen > helium > deuterium > … > … > … single celled organisms > … > … primates > … > … humans are incredibly complicated and specific. But what if we applied the same complicated and specific process (or an infinite variation thereof) to the CD factory. Are you sure it’s impossible? and worse yet - can you prove it?
Carnelian@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Are you sure it’s impossible? and worse yet - can you prove it?
This is known as an argument from ignorance. I’m not sure how familiar you are with this terminology, so to be clear, I am not insulting you or calling you ignorant. But in summary, something is not true until proven otherwise.
The conditions inside the warehouse are not similar to the conditions of the early universe or the primordial soup. You need to demonstrate a mechanism for stable, non-reactive plastic to become sentient if you assert that it’s indeed possible.
TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You haven’t disproved anything. The common understanding of multiverses typically only extends to livable multiverses, but there are infinite multiverses capable of sustaining logic and organization, just as there are infinite universes of junk data.
Carnelian@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I have disproven that an infinite set necessarily contains every arbitrary possibility. And quite simply, too. Notice how the set of natural numbers does not contain any grapes.
Thus, the burden of proof is now on those who claim they do know what is in the multiverse. Such as yourself. What evidence do you have for these “junk data” universes?
TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m going to blow your mind with a simple bit of logic. IF the junk data universes don’t exist, then the multiverse isn’t infinite. Order is an infinite subset of disorder.
Carnelian@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Did you learn that from a fortune cookie?
HawlSera@lemm.ee 11 months ago
It seems inefficient to run so many instances of the same scenario
Klear@lemmy.world 11 months ago
What blew my mind is that it hasn’t been proven that pi contains an infinte number of ones, for instance. It’s not out of the question that there is a decimal place where the last 1 appears and there are none from then on.
It’s not really likely, but we simply don’t know and it is possible. It sounds weird given how many decimals of pi we’ve calculated, until you realise we’ve literally calculated 0% of them.
Carnelian@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yeah! It’s a really beautiful thing to think about. And exciting to imagine we may one day see a mathematician who works out the truth
bric@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Yep! Pi might be a “Normal” irrational number, which is a really poorly named classification that basically means that the “random” arrangement of numbers in pi isn’t weighted and so you’ll end up with 1 in 10 digits being 1, and that that will be true for all bases. We’re kind of at a point where we think Pi is “normal”, but we can’t prove it.
If it is “normal” though, then that means that you could find any arbitrary sequence of numbers inside of pi, somewhere. Meaning that in base 128, pi would contain the ascii sequence for every book ever written, every book that ever will be written, every book that could be written, the accurate date of your death, and anything else you could ever imagine. Again, that’s not proven, but we think it’s the case
blackluster117@possumpat.io 11 months ago
Whatcha got in that pi? Everything…
rockSlayer@lemmy.world 11 months ago
From a mathematical standpoint you’re right, but from the standpoint of application pi has an infinitesimal accuracy without going to 45 digits. At 3.1415926535, we’re more accurate than the distance between 3 atoms.
Klear@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I don’t see how that’s relevant. Plus your last sentence sounds like you’re just repeating something you heard but forgot a part of it, because it makes no sense as it is.
bric@lemm.ee 11 months ago
The part they’re misremembering is that if you used 39 digits of pi as pi (not 45), it would be enough to calculate the circumference of the observable universe with a forward error of less than the width of a hydrogen atom (not the distance between 3)