Actually, in scientific academia, multiverse theories and parallel universes are often taken to be very serious theories. For example, I believe Sean Carroll has written several books on a theory he was involved in creating (sorry, rough memory) that was relatively cogent and coherent and it involved some sort of multiverse theory. Theories are really just that, theories. Their strength tends to depend upon a few things, i.e. apriori probability, probability based on number of assumptions (Occam's razor is good here), most importantly predictive success, etc. It's not fiction at all, they're all theories, including whatever view you take of time. The strength of your own view is somewhat proportionate to the justification you have for it, although I don't think epistemology is that simple given the flaws of classical foundationalism. Sorry, real bad at summarizing and simplifying, no desire to use such esoteric language.
So I 99.9% agree with this. The one thing that constantly makes me mad is the use of the term theory. Theories are actually very difficult to declare - they need massive empirical backing. So yes, multiversal hypotheses and beliefs are somewhat backed. But they aren't theories.
Actually, in scientific academia, multiverse theories and parallel universes are often taken to be very serious theories. For example, I believe Sean Carroll has written several books on a theory he was involved in creating (sorry, rough memory) that was relatively cogent and coherent and it involved some sort of multiverse theory. Theories are really just that, theories. Their strength tends to depend upon a few things, i.e. apriori probability, probability based on number of assumptions (Occam's razor is good here), most importantly predictive success, etc. It's not fiction at all, they're all theories, including whatever view you take of time. The strength of your own view is somewhat proportionate to the justification you have for it, although I don't think epistemology is that simple given the flaws of classical foundationalism. Sorry, real bad at summarizing and simplifying, no desire to use such esoteric language.
So I 99.9% agree with this. The one thing that constantly makes me mad is the use of the term theory. Theories are actually very difficult to declare - they need massive empirical backing. So yes, multiversal hypotheses and beliefs are somewhat backed. But they aren't theories.
So, while a theory of time like Carroll's may involve some hypothesizing, the two aren't entirely mutually exclusive, given that the overall theory follows the defined criteria.
The whole time travel phenomenon is based on the fact that speed of light is faster than the earths rotational speed, But the fact still remains even if you travel at the speed of light you would only cover more distance and in less time.
Speed= Distance/ Time.
Now time in this equation is relative and time we talk about is absolute, hence the confusion.
Now to the glorified wormholes which itself is only a theory but still it to connects to points in SPACEtime so here too the concept is you are connected to two place which are miles apart but you can travel between them in a seconds.
Eg.Suppose there is a huge mountain to travel over it will take time hence we create a tunnel similarly wormhole is a hypothetical largest forms of tunnel.
If you pass through the tunnel it does not mean you have reached in future it simply means you saved time.
Based on this please nerf Bishop and Cable the are just lying to us about all this time travel stuff.
Yes and no. If you are moving faster than the speed of light, the function f(t)=t changes. Time no longer moves at a speed of one second per second for you. Whether or not you define existing in a different rate of movement along a timeline than the traditional pace as "time travel" or not is up to you. I'm not gonna talk about wormholes tho that's too much effort.
Hey there, the update is still coming out today. The amount of time it takes to fully implement across all platforms can vary depending on different factors, so sometimes it can just take a bit longer to reach everyone. It could take up to a few more hours (at maximum), but the update should still reach everyone today.
Hey there, the update is still coming out today. The amount of time it takes to fully implement across all platforms can vary depending on different factors, so sometimes it can just take a bit longer to reach everyone. It could take up to a few more hours (at maximum), but the update should still reach everyone today
Hey there, the update is still coming out today. The amount of time it takes to fully implement across all platforms can vary depending on different factors, so sometimes it can just take a bit longer to reach everyone. It could take up to a few more hours (at maximum), but the update should still reach everyone today.
knowing my luck it’s gonna be 11:59 when the update goes live lol
Comments
So, while a theory of time like Carroll's may involve some hypothesizing, the two aren't entirely mutually exclusive, given that the overall theory follows the defined criteria.
IOS users waiting for this update.....