Alpha, Beta... and the rest?

I've been here thinking about this whole "alternative universums" topic as featured on EGS.
The main references are these comics I think; if there are others I've forgotten, let me know.
http://www.elgoonishshive.com/d/20020723.html
http://www.elgoonishshive.com/d/20021109.html
http://www.elgoonishshive.com/d/20021212.html

On the last one there reads "Goo Cell 0812"... that's a LOT of goo cells & consecutively Tedds... I wonder if Beta is trying to contact all the hundreds of them?? And, maybe Beta could hold some sort of a Tedd convention(s)? I wonder where ours would rank... "Lambda Tedd #22"? So, this would lend itself for all kinds of bizarre Tedd variants... of varying ages, personalities, maybe even outlooks.. or even species... or whatever.
(On an "Introduction to your basic distinguishing features" roll: )
...
L20: "I'm a 62 years old plumber from Pittsburgh."
L21: "In my world, people have four legs and cheese rains from the sky."
L22: "I have a transformation gun."
L23: "WTF wo R U d00ds???++"
L24: "Why are you all upside down and lack bormels? Or is it just me?"
L25: "Sayjan owûi haatla ratzp kxuul é auyfrl! Ds'hui kajava beta luom?" ("I don't understand a thing you're saying! Can you translate, Beta?")
L26: "Mommy! That evil man is on my computer again!"
L27: "I'm a zombie. I work at a circus."
L28: "I breed chainsaw weasels."
L29: "My name is Mike."
...et cetera... :D

Strange enough though, I got the impression that neither of them (Alpha & Beta) are really interested in all the apparently very numerous Tesses.

(There's probably going to be more of this topic after Painted Black, but who's going to wait that long?!)

There was the filler featuring Dr. Hogarn or somesuch, but that was just an extra joke.

Isn't it possible that Lord Tedd just created a whole lotta goo monsters? It doesn't neccissarily mean that each goo cell has it's own Tedd......

On that note.

Tedd #444: (Missy Tess) I'm a half-cat super model that enjoy's being shrunk from time to time.... what are you all gawking at.... ewwww, I"m you you sickos!"

"So, how's your relationship with Ellen?"
"Oh, she decided she was interested in Nanase. You?"
"We got married."
Third guy: "You guys talking about Elliot? -sigh- what a man."
Other two: "eeeeeee"

IMagine the possible tedds, and all the possible senarios..

Tedd "and which tedd are you?"
"Delta Tedd"
Tedd "So your the female version of me"
Delta Tedd "Yes"
Tedd "O look, there's an alternate Nanase too.. hey wait, why is she.. AHH! wow.. thats hott.."

( lol a party scene with all tedds is funny)

tedd "hey gama, what difference do you have from me?"
gama tedd "im trans-sexual"
tedd "oh...wait...than that means your grace must have...AHHHHH!!!"
gama tedd "yes she does"

(just another sick and twisted thingy from me, btw what would tedd think of grace like that..(you know what i mean lol))

wouldn't one of the alterinate Tedds have Elliot's training in anime stlye fighting?

That would be funny, To watch Tedd beat the hell out of elliot. It would be funny to watch Tedd beat the hell out of anyone.

know what the saddest alternate demention is, omega, the TF gun was never invented

I think that might be where we live.

know what the saddest alternate demention is, omega, the TF gun was never invented

Somewhere a Tedd is crying...

does it strike anyone as kinda pointless to try to destroy all alternate versions of yourself? I mean, the number of alternate tedds is infinite, down to certain ones being different only because of some infinitely small variation.(i.e., someone having a birthmark or not...)

Hey nobody ever said Lord Tedd was sane...

The multiverse might not be infinate...how much does Lord Tedd know?

does it strike anyone as kinda pointless to try to destroy all alternate versions of yourself? I mean, the number of alternate tedds is infinite...

Not necessarily. While there MAY exist an infinite number of universes and thus an infinite number of Tedds, it is also probable that Lord Tedd only has access to a finite number of them through whatever technology he employs for interdimensional travel. I strongly suspect that he can only go to "relavantly distinct" universes, meaning that they have to be different from each other by at least a certain amount.

Here's an analogy. Imagine that the multiverse is like a stack of paper sheets, each infinitely thin. Each sheet is one universe, cut off from the others unless one uses interdimensional transportation. However, since each universe is "infinitely thin", you can not distinguish between two that are extremely "close together" because the distance between them is less than the precision of your method of travel--you can never hit EXACTLY at a given point; you will always be off by ever-so-small an amount. Also, basic quantum uncertainty implies that no matter how much you refine your method of travel, you will never be able to get perfect precision.

Given that you can never hit a specific universe exactly when departing from wherever you are, the only way you can get to a specific universe (or return to your own) is by using a transponder or something else that you can "home in on". The consequence of this is that reaching a universe that you have not yet "catalogued" basically consists of sending out random probes untill you get a hit. It also means that if your "foothold" in a universe is destroyed, then finding it again means a LOT of trial-and-error.

Given that you can never hit a specific universe exactly when departing from wherever you are, the only way you can get to a specific universe (or return to your own) is by using a transponder or something else that you can "home in on". The consequence of this is that reaching a universe that you have not yet "catalogued" basically consists of sending out random probes untill you get a hit. It also means that if your "foothold" in a universe is destroyed, then finding it again means a LOT of trial-and-error.

I read a story where a guy tried to get back as close as possible to his own dimention (they never got it exactly right before), and he ended up crashing into another version of himself coming back. However one of them died in the crash, and the other one was so torn up over it he commited suicide. Keep in mind this is cliffnotes for a fairly complex story. Alternate universes seem to be one quick way to a migrain, the other being time travel.

the problem that exists is this, there are less tedds than there are universes

probabilty states that half of all universes that exist have tedd, the other half dont.

of the ones that tedd exists in, half of those he is not androdgynous, the other half he is.

of those in half he is male, the other half he is female.

basically this goes on, the only way to get back to your universe would be to know everything about it, where each atom was in the big bang, where they where when you left, and where they are when you get back, meaning that unless you can simulate the universe perfectly accurately (quantum uncertainty principle state you cannot) faster than time, you'd never know if you were truely in your universe nor would you be able to find it, except once, by luck, but you wouldn't know it from one only slightly different from yours.

probabilty states that half of all universes that exist have tedd, the other half dont.
[etc.]
It doesn't have to be exactly half and a half in every case. Or do you live at such a region that everything has a 50% probability of happening? You see pink elephants on your sofa every second time you check? ;)
basically this goes on, the only way to get back to your universe would be to know everything about it

True, but you could also find a universe close enough — so that everything you knew is as should, including the fact that you had left for a dimensional trip, but that one star in the Sombrero galaxy has 2.5 tons more helium and this one dog in Cairo lacks that star-shaped pigment spot. Would that matter?
Actually, infinitely infinite multiverse also implies that there is an infinite amount of alternates of everyone travelling around... and there's even that one universe where a few quintillion alternates of someone stuble accidentally at the same time. Or the universe which is just like ours, except that there suddendly materializes a giant carnivorous grasshopper behind your back as you're reading this. Just think about that.

In fact you don't even need a time machine if you have an ultimate dimension browser. Just find a dimension which is similar enough to ours but where everything happened a few years in advance, or a few years later.

Man, is this convenient or what? :D

basically this goes on, the only way to get back to your universe would be to know everything about it, where each atom was in the big bang, where they where when you left, and where they are when you get back, meaning that unless you can simulate the universe perfectly accurately (quantum uncertainty principle state you cannot) faster than time, you'd never know if you were truely in your universe nor would you be able to find it, except once, by luck, but you wouldn't know it from one only slightly different from yours.

This is exactly why I said that you can never have enough precision to find your universe exactly--describing the entire history of a universe down to the quantum level would take a computer as complex as the universe itself working for a good part of the universe's lifespan. Thus, you can only get close to your target universe to within a certain margin. However, a computer slightly less complex than your own brain could probably pick out a universe close enough to your target one that you would not be conscious of the difference--a world in which the chief differences were in people/places you never personally encountered or heard of yourself would probably be indistinguishable to you from your own as long as the people. places, and things that you DO know are the same.

I just hope to see more characters from alternates universes !

Indeed!

As a question-- how many differences add up to someone who is no longer Tedd (nor Tess) at all?

How long is a piece of string?

In an infinate multiverse there's infinate possibilities, so it would be impossible to tell where Teddness ends and non-Teddness begins.

Talking of which, if an infinate mutliverse does exist, might there be an EGS universe out there?

if we exist in part of an infinate mulitiverse and there are infiniate universes every possibility could exist. Does that mean that every possibility WOULD exist?

It doesn't really, but it makes you think. And then makes your mind do wild somasaults before going on strike.

If we exist in part of an infinate mulitiverse and there are infinite universes every possibility could exist. Does that mean that every possibility WOULD exist?

It doesn't really, but it makes you think. And then makes your mind do wild somasaults before going on strike.

Wheee! <flip> <flip> <flip>

They could all be the same-- though I would doubt that. Further, is the number countable or uncountable (in the terminology used in transfinite mathematics)? I *expect* that the actual number is both uncountable, and of every possible configuration. Meaning that everything that is *possible* to exist does somewhere. (Alas though- that *still* doesn't mean the EGS universe actually exists somewhere-- is the TF gun (for example) 'possible' even under mutated forms of physics, or is it everywhere impossible?

If it's impossible to tell where Teddness ends and non-Teddness begins...does this mean that deep down in some way we are all Tedd? :banana: :banana: :banana:

That's an interesting though Liam, although I'd like to claim I'm closer than most *points at the "looks like EGS" thread*

As for the TF gun being possible...if there were infinite universes and infinate possibilities representated in them, surely there would be many (if not most) with different physics to ours. Is there a universe somewhere where Shive physics reign?

Someone once postulated the theory that for every item of fiction that someone comes up with, if there is an infinate mulitiverse, all of these possibilities are actualities somewhere. This is a highly disturbing thought.

Then Ryvaken is the name of the kinkiest faerie in existance. W00T!

As for the TF gun being possible...if there were infinite universes and infinate possibilities representated in them, surely there would be many (if not most) with different physics to ours. Is there a universe somewhere where Shive physics reign?

Well- there would be in fact, an infinite number of them with physics different from ours-- yet,- given that number of universes, there isn't one in which (for example) 2+2=5. I do not accept that a universe with such basic inconsistencies can actually be said to 'exist' (indeed, we could get into the entire argument of what it means for another universe to 'exist'... But I digress). So- regardless of the physics involved, does the existence of the TF gun create an inconsistency that simply could not occur in a universe that also had human-looking creatures in it? (Which is not *quite* the same as it not existing *anywhere*, but if I cannot exist in the same universe as it, then I don't particularly care about its existence).


Someone once postulated the theory that for every item of fiction that someone comes up with, if there is an infinate mulitiverse, all of these possibilities are actualities somewhere. This is a highly disturbing thought.
Hmmm- Heinlein is the first that I know of-- the 'multiple solipsist' idea. An unpleasant thought indeed, although it could be that authors are not so much 'creating' then as 'reporting'-- which comes first, author or universe?

Well- there would be in fact, an infinite number of them with physics different from ours-- yet,- given that number of universes, there isn't one in which (for example) 2+2=5. I do not accept that a universe with such basic inconsistencies can actually be said to 'exist' (indeed, we could get into the entire argument of what it means for another universe to 'exist'... But I digress).
What's wrong with "illogical" universums? Your point of view is just too narrow... In fact, I have nothing against the existence of universes even more irrational you can think of. For example, I can imagine an universe where the logical axiomes are different and there's an unwhole number of time dimensions. And are these "dimension" thingys really necessary? Maybe you could have something else instead, such as pretzels.
This really stretches the definition of "to exist" though. :Puzzled:

Also, imagine that nothing existed! Though if you think you have succeeded in imagining that, you are mistaken for sure.

What's wrong with "illogical" universums? Your point of view is just too narrow... In fact, I have nothing against the existence of universes even more irrational you can think of. For example, I can imagine an universe where the logical axiomes are different and there's an unwhole number of time dimensions. And are these "dimension" thingys really necessary? Maybe you could have something else instead, such as pretzels.
This really stretches the definition of "to exist" though. :Puzzled:

Also, imagine that nothing existed! Though if you think you have succeeded in imagining that, you are mistaken for sure.


A universe that is entirely too illogical would likely be too unstable to exist, to put matters simply. A truely fundamental inconsistancy, or worse, more than one, would likely rip a universe apart. However, having said that...I don't think there's anything in Shive Physics that could really count as such an inconsistancy. I don't see any inconsistancy in Shive Physics that could not probably be compensated for in some other way. Utterly impossible in this universe...but perhaps not in others. I don't see any 2+2=5 moments.

If it's impossible to tell where Teddness ends and non-Teddness begins...does this mean that deep down in some way we are all Tedd? :banana: :banana: :banana:
this would mean that we are also part Grace, Susan, Ellen, and Elliot. does this mean that we are also attracted to ourselves, and some have a were-squirel form?

A universe that is entirely too illogical would likely be too unstable to exist, to put matters simply. A truely fundamental inconsistancy, or worse, more than one, would likely rip a universe apart.

I'm not sure quite about that, but my point of view is that if there is no way to even imagine such a universe, much less visit/exchange things with/etc. said universe, then in principal it is so much ether.

Can you imagine a universe whose geometry allows an equilateral triangle with three different angles? It's easy to say, 'yeah sure- I can imagine that' but I am willing to bet that you don't have a picture of it in your head consistent with that illogic geometry. This could be less because such a universe a prioir cannot exist, and more to the limitations of our experience and brains in *this* universe, but I am also willing to bet that nothing from our universe could exist in that universe and vice versa- therefore making it impossible even in principle to visit or observe-- so to us it might as well not exist.


<inconsistent physics in EGS? snipped>
Utterly impossible in this universe...but perhaps not in others. I don't see any 2+2=5 moments.
Well, admittedly, neither do I-- but the inconsistency could be subtle. However, it's more fun to figure out just how *could* a TF gun exist!

I'm not sure quite about that, but my point of view is that if there is no way to even imagine such a universe, much less visit/exchange things with/etc. said universe, then in principal it is so much ether.

Can you imagine a universe whose geometry allows an equilateral triangle with three different angles? It's easy to say, 'yeah sure- I can imagine that' but I am willing to bet that you don't have a picture of it in your head consistent with that illogic geometry. This could be less because such a universe a prioir cannot exist, and more to the limitations of our experience and brains in *this* universe, but I am also willing to bet that nothing from our universe could exist in that universe and vice versa- therefore making it impossible even in principle to visit or observe-- so to us it might as well not exist.


Well, admittedly, neither do I-- but the inconsistency could be subtle. However, it's more fun to figure out just how *could* a TF gun exist!
well technically such a gun *could possibly* exist, not the problem is that the only method i can think would be to encode a retrovirus with RNA that would produce new DNA through a complex series of steps, now the problem with this is that it would only alter the DNA, not the shape or mass of the body, now there is alot we dont know about the human body, and it is theoretically possible for Startrek like Transporter technology to exist, which would allow you to rearrange everything, but even that would take LOTS of computational power and time to preform the operation.

in other words, it can't be done, yet.

Can you imagine a universe whose geometry allows an equilateral triangle with three different angles? It's easy to say, 'yeah sure- I can imagine that' but I am willing to bet that you don't have a picture of it in your head consistent with that illogic geometry. This could be less because such a universe a prioir cannot exist, and more to the limitations of our experience and brains in *this* universe, but I am also willing to bet that nothing from our universe could exist in that universe and vice versa- therefore making it impossible even in principle to visit or observe-- so to us it might as well not exist.


Well an equilateral triangle with different angles can exist in any space where the curvature of space is not constant--that is, space is curved by different amounts depending on where you are located (naturally such a space would be non-relativistic). Anyway, I agree with the point that a universe that contains self-contradicting rules could not exist because it would not be consistent with itself.

Can you imagine a universe whose geometry allows an equilateral triangle with three different angles? It's easy to say, 'yeah sure- I can imagine that' but I am willing to bet that you don't have a picture of it in your head consistent with that illogic geometry. This could be less because such a universe a prioir cannot exist, and more to the limitations of our experience and brains in *this* universe, but I am also willing to bet that nothing from our universe could exist in that universe and vice versa- therefore making it impossible even in principle to visit or observe-- so to us it might as well not exist.

To us, it might as well not exist...but that doesn't mean that it simply does not exist! Just because you don't remember something, it does not mean that it did not happen. (Actually, it might, but there's only so far I want to screw with my brain right now).

Just because we don't, or may never, know about something does not mean that it doesn't "exist", somewhere and somehow.

Just because we don't, or may never, know about something does not mean that it doesn't "exist", somewhere and somehow.
Yeah. While "illogical universums" are completely nonexistant to us, they can exist in "theory". Logical axiomes need not to be fundamental on an absolute level, akin to the geometric axiomes. (Is there an e in "axiomes"?) There exists already a branch of logics called "metalogics" - these are based on more fundamental (but still not absolute) axiomes, from which the standards — ie. if a =b and b =c then a = c — can be derived, but which also allow different logical structures to be derived. Including trinary logics (where "not proven" is not just an unknown state, it's a proper logical value of a statement besides "true" and "false"), fuzzy logics (an extension of the previous where "all shades of gray" are permitted) and others.

So adding higher and higher metalogical levels, achieving a level where downright "illogicalities" are permitted, could be possible.

Yeah. While "illogical universums" are completely nonexistant to us, they can exist in "theory". Logical axiomes need not to be fundamental on an absolute level, akin to the geometric axiomes. (Is there an e in "axiomes"?)

No "e".

There exists already a branch of logics called "metalogics" - these are based on more fundamental (but still not absolute) axiomes, from which the standards — ie. if a =b and b =c then a = c — can be derived, but which also allow different logical structures to be derived. Including trinary logics (where "not proven" is not just an unknown state, it's a proper logical value of a statement besides "true" and "false"), fuzzy logics (an extension of the previous where "all shades of gray" are permitted) and others.

So adding higher and higher metalogical levels, achieving a level where downright "illogicalities" are permitted, could be possible.

While different logical systems are certainly possible, I do believe that there is no logical system in which a statement can simultaneously have multiple logical states. For example, in no system can a statement be simultaneously true and false (although it can have a "truth value" anywhere between zero and one, where zero equals totally false). Essentially, having multiple simultaneous truth values for a single statement results in self-inconsistency.

While different logical systems are certainly possible, I do believe that there is no logical system in which a statement can simultaneously have multiple logical states. For example, in no system can a statement be simultaneously true and false (although it can have a "truth value" anywhere between zero and one, where zero equals totally false). Essentially, having multiple simultaneous truth values for a single statement results in self-inconsistency.


Ah I see you've never looked into quantum mechanics then. Such a system exists within this reality. In quantum mechanics something can have multiple states at the same time. The particle is both here and there, the cat is both dead and alive, until you actually pin it down. There are two main theories, one is that the observer determines reality, the other is that each possibility splits of a different branch of reality where each thing occurs. The second theory has been gaining serious ground recently. Which of course leads us back to Alpha, Beta, and all the other Tedds.... :-)

Anyway, our reality, on a fundamental level, actually seems to depends on something you label as an inconsistancy. Of course quantum mechanics is literally filled with such inconsistancies. When you think you understand quantum mechanics...you don't. That goes even for the experts on the subject.

Can you imagine a universe whose geometry allows an equilateral triangle with three different angles? It's easy to say, 'yeah sure- I can imagine that' but I am willing to bet that you don't have a picture of it in your head consistent with that illogic geometry.

_this_ universe allows such a thing, just not on an euclidean surface (i.e. a plane)

draw it on a sphere, and you can have three of any angle from 60.00etc01 to 179.99etc99. draw it on an ellipsoid, and you can have three each of different angles >60 degrees. draw it on a hyperboloid and you can have smaller angles. none of these nor a plane are more or less valid than any others.

_this_ universe allows such a thing, just not on an euclidean surface (i.e. a plane)

draw it on a sphere, and you can have three of any angle from 60.00etc01 to 179.99etc99. draw it on an ellipsoid, and you can have three each of different angles >60 degrees. draw it on a hyperboloid and you can have smaller angles. none of these nor a plane are more or less valid than any others.
Ah- the angles are not 60 degrees to be sure, but on such regular surfaces (i.e. surfaces of constant curvature), the angles are still equal to each other if all three sides of the triangle have equal length-- that theorem doesn't depend upon the parallel postulate (which is the one changed by the non-euclidean geometries you bring up).

Further, the global geometry of our universe is (according to the latest findings, and subject to change, no doubt) Euclidean (i.e constant curvature of zero). Locally, that does, of course, change.

Hmm- the ellipsoidal surface is non-constant curvature, so you're correct on that one-- kudos!

ex animo-

You can get even up to 299.999 degrees on a sphere if you "wrap it over"...

Ah I see you've never looked into quantum mechanics then. Such a system exists within this reality. In quantum mechanics something can have multiple states at the same time. The particle is both here and there, the cat is both dead and alive, until you actually pin it down. There are two main theories, one is that the observer determines reality, the other is that each possibility splits of a different branch of reality where each thing occurs. The second theory has been gaining serious ground recently. Which of course leads us back to Alpha, Beta, and all the other Tedds.... :-)

Anyway, our reality, on a fundamental level, actually seems to depends on something you label as an inconsistancy. Of course quantum mechanics is literally filled with such inconsistancies. When you think you understand quantum mechanics...you don't. That goes even for the experts on the subject.

While superposition (the state of being in multiple states simultaneously) does exist, a superposed system can not interact with non-superposed systems--it must take a non-superposed state or else the non-superposed system that it is interacting with will not be capable of reacting to it--definite states can only interact with definite states.

However, certain states ARE known to be incompatible with certain other states. Ever heard of Pauli Exclusion? That's the one that says that two matter particles (not energy particles like photons) can not occupy the same space/quantum state at once to a degree closer than their Heisenberg uncertainty.

We may be a part of a superposition ourselves. Suppose you have two scientist cats, both in Scrödinger boxes joined with a door, except that instead of poison there's sleeping gas. Either cat will surely think to be either 100% awake or 100% asleep, not in some bizarre superposition; but they'll think that the other cat is in such a state...
Do you see it now? We don't know whether Goldbach's conjecture is true or not, so it may be true AND false simultaneously. This applies especially to those statements for which can be proven that they cannot be proven..!

You can get even up to 299.999 degrees on a sphere if you "wrap it over"...
:) Just keep addin' on those '9's!

We may be a part of a superposition ourselves. Suppose you have two scientist cats, both in Scrödinger boxes joined with a door, except that instead of poison there's sleeping gas. Either cat will surely think to be either 100% awake or 100% asleep, not in some bizarre superposition; but they'll think that the other cat is in such a state...

And that is a *very* interesting variation on the traditional thought experiment... hmmm...


Do you see it now? We don't know whether Goldbach's conjecture is true or not, so it may be true AND false simultaneously. This applies especially to those statements for which can be proven that they cannot be proven..!

Hmmm- interesting, but does philosophical (i.e. from a formal system) undecidability equal physical (from a set of quantum states) superposition?

Of course- Goldbach's conjecture (for those that don't know, Goldbach conjectured that every even number can be written as the sum of two primes-- I think he may have stated the problem slightly differently, but logically identical to what I just said), um- yes, as I was saying, G's conjecture might not be formally undecidable, merely difficult to prove (as Fermat's last theorem turned out to be), in which case, I would argue that it has a definite state, even if we don't happen to know it now.

Hmm- but now you've opened up a whole can of worms, and here I was hoping to get some sleep tonight- this is gonna keep me up! <yawn> Ok , probably not, as I only got four hours last night, but still...

Right- g'night for now- oiche maith- see you tomorrow.

<wanders off mumbling to self>

Fastinating stuff, keep it up. I'd post my own responses, but I keep only getting here late at night and I'd be completely incoherant.

Gödel has proven that in every logical system there are statements whose truth is impossible to determine. This is what I see corresponding with the quantum superposition; there is now way to tell whether it is true or false, until we add another axiom (or open the Schrödinger box).

An example of this would be the Cantor's continuum hypothesis (that there are "aleph-1" points in a continuum, with "aleph-0" being the least degree of infinity.) It can be proven that traditional set theory cannot prove this, so only the addition of new axioms solved this.
Though this particular example doesn't relate to the matter at hand much at all.