I agree with you up to the last sentence.

I would say it is an analogy that is clumsy at best, and definitely not proof of anything about possible or impossible universes, as the OP presented it.

Ah, you are correct, my example was flawed.

Thats what /I/ get for not having brushed up on Set Theory 101 in a decade.

Derp.

For something to be a possible universe vs an impossible universe, we would be talking about possible laws of physics that do and do not allow for a universe to exist.

That would be the constraints to an infinite set of possible universes.

The fact that there exist an infinity of fractions between one and two is irrelevant and has no bearing on this at all.

There are absolutely not an infinite number of things that could be excluded from the set of infinite possible universes.

Gravity, for example.

Last I checked, it was posited that a universe could possibly exist without the Weak Nuclear Force, but I have never heard of a possible universe that could exist without the Strong Nuclear Force or Electromagnetism.

This does not make any sense.

If there are an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2, all you are doing is naming a set of universes with a constricted naming convention, and the set of universes is still infinite, thus contains any possible universe including an infinite number with an exact replica of you, an infinite number with a slightly different version of you, and an infinite number where you do not exist.

Just because constrained infinities of certain kinds of numbers can be nested within other infinities of unconstrained, or less constrained infinities of universes does not mean that somehow this has applications to multiverse theory.

If the given assumption is ‘there are an infinite number of alternate universes’ then the fact that fractions between 1 and 2 are an infinite set has literally no logical ability to mandate that this would somehow constrain the nature of previously established infinity of universes.

The possibilities of an infinite set of universes would be ultimately constrained by all possible sets of the laws of physics that allow any kind of universe to exist.

We already know that we live in a universe where humans exist, so, again, there will thus be an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of variations of you exist, and and infinite number where you do not exist.

EDIT: Here is maybe another way of looking at this.

There are an infinite number of positive integers.

There are also an infinite number of even integers, as well as odd integers.

The set of all odd integers contains half the number of all integers, though both are still infinite.

The set of all odd integers is constrained by the rule of none of its constituents are cleanly divisible by two.

But the fact that you can arbitrarily chose a rule to constrain one, larger infinite set into a smaller but still infinite set, does not mean that the larger infinite set does not still exist.

For this ‘fractional universes’ constraint to make any sense, one would have to demonstrate /why/ the constraint would need to apply to a set of all universes, in a way that is actually meaningfully different than /the constraint not being there/.

And that is an astoundingly complex matter of physics, not Set Theory 101.

EDIT 2: My above example from EDIT 1 is not logically valid, so… I played myself on that one, and worse it seems to have confused the whole discussion, so, apologies for that.

Check out leftzero’s link for a more accurate analogy that I /should/ have used.

I still believe my original main point still stands though: The fact that there are an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2 in no way means anything whatsoever about possible multiverses.

Possible and Impossible universes are defined by the laws of physics.

To override my comment elsewhere in this thread:

A universe without gravity could conceptually exist, but stars would not form, so we would probably not have any of the atomic elements produced by novae and super novae. Also, no galaxies, no black holes, no planets, no life as we know it, as it seems life requires a planet.

A universe without the Strong Nuclear Force would just be ‘quark soup’.

A universe without the Weak Nuclear Force on the other hand has been demonstrated by at least one, perhaps now multiple papers to actually possibly be relatively similar to ours in some ways… very big picture kind of ways.

A universe without ElectroMagnetism … at bare minimum would have vastly different Chemistry than ours. Organic Chemistry seems largely impossible, so no life as we know it, other than possibly some primitive extremophiles.

But these are just thought experiments.

My main point was the whole ‘infinite fractions existing between 1 and 2 has no ramifications on multiverses that could exist’ thing, and I again apologize for an incorrect and misleading example.

This is because most anti cheats for windows are kernel level rootkits that have full access to your entire system, and gamers just trust that known to be ineffective, scammy and profiteering, anti cheat companies software companies would /never/ do anything nefarious.

How can you trust them?

You can’t! Black boxed code, babyyyyyy.

Anyway yeah on linux systems basically the designs of all common anti cheat systems would be laughed at as hilariously insecure code that no sane person would allow on their computer because you would have to give it root level access.

This is basically insane as in the linux paradigm, root level access is reserved only for a bare minimum of system processes, whereas on Windows, well with the new Pluton tech in the latest lines of major CPUs, Windows has the ability to DRM literally anything you install on it and just get rid of your ability to run or install it, as they see fit, with a network enabled sub layer of the CPU that you as a user cannot override from within Windows.

The only hurdle for linux gaming is for more gamers and game developers to realize the truth of what I just said.

Its possible to do anti cheat in less invasive ways. But that requires more work from game development studios, and is costly.

Anyone else remember when servers had like actual human admins that would respond to player complaints, and would work on the backend of a server to come up with their own ways to detect cheating server side?

I don’t know what you say, but as a debian omnivore most people don’t notice either.

You know, because the computer just works, looks a little different, kinda like a mac on top, but free, and powerful and stable under the hood.

See I value practicality and reliability, and also ease of use.

This applies to meals as well.

Sure I’ll go vegan if I can, get free range stuff when I can afford it, but I’m not made of money and infinite free time, as one would have to be to be a morally consistent vegan.

Detonate is actually more precise, implying an explosion that accelerates at or faster than the speed of sound, often causing a visible blast wave in air that is humid and dense enough as the pressure wave compresses the air and squeezes it into visible semi cloud like formations momentarily.

RUD is a general term that can cover any number of events which cause a craft to generally lose structural integrity in a small amount of time.

For example, a craft could hit max q either at a non optimal angle, or due to structural integrity flaws, more or less violently tear itself apart.

Or, a craft could enter the atmosphere at a non optimal angle, or at too extreme a velocity, and be ripped apart, again, violently and quickly. This is generally referred to as ‘Burning Up’.

Or a craft could have a parachute or landing system related problem and impact the ground at such speeds it disassembles itself. Jokingly referred to as ‘lithobraking’.

Or, a craft could have an accidental triggering of some kind of abort system that results in the craft tearing itself apart.

Or, at any point while airborne, a problem with either the integrity of a fuel tank or the fuel pumps and plumbing could cause a rupture, which could then cause the craft to crumple, deform, and then rip itself apart /without/ the loose fuel igniting, or perhaps /with/ the loose fuel igniting, which may merely conflagrate or detonate depending on other factors.

While many of these more specific chains of events have more specific terms to describe them… they are /all/ Rapid Unplanned Disassemblies.

All that that term means is for some reason your craft went from being more or less one piece to more or less a large number of pieces very quickly.

For example the Challenger disaster was a RUD. But not a detonation. Detonation is more specific and I used the term for a reason.

Trump has now literally said he is going to be a dictator, said that he wants to get rid of vermin, meaning anyone not a Republican, and is also very concerned about the purity of the blood of the nation.

Are you just amazingly ignorant, or the first overt right wing troll from r/thedonald that I have encountered on lemmy?

EDIT: oh god read your other comments, obvious troll is obvious holy shit

Ah, that makes much more sense.

There is no point to a small handheld device being in 4k.

2k /maybe/.

You would have to have literally super human vision to tell the difference between a 2k and 4k display the size of a phone unless you held it something like 2 or 3 inches from your face.

At which distance most people cannot focus their eyes anyway.

Set up a small raspberry pi device that is.programmed to constantly spam them with nonsense emails and give it a decent battery and casing and hide it near somewhere with public wifi.

Maybe tie it into that Wisdom of Deepak Chopra text generator or something.

Well, the booster exploded below the Karman line (EDIT: Yep, 90km max alt. and detonation, Karman line is 100km), and the orbiter blew up or tore itself apart above the Karman line.

And no, the orbiter did not self destruct as part of some kind of intentional action or design by SpaceX.

It was seen on camera disintegrating before SpaceX even realized they had lost contact with it.

They probably did not engage a self destruct system on the orbiter while they were still claiming it was at a nominal trajectory when they hadnt even realized it had already disintegrated, taking multiple minutes to even realize they’d lost contact with it as pieces of it were already burning and tumbling in the upper atmosphere.

My prediction for 3 is that again at least part of the craft will blow up below the Karman line.

The full static test fires they recently did damaged the craft because the test stand wasn’t designed for that the amount of force, nor for the duration they’re currently testing with it, and because for some baffling reason they are not using a flame trench or proper diversion channels.

My guess is that, combined with the defects and flaws seen from the first two launches, these full power static fire tests will have damaged the craft more than they are able to repair properly in time to follow Musk’s recklessly fast launch timetable, and the whole thing will blow up or have significant trajectory problems from multiple non catastrophic engine failures before the hot staging, and/or when the booster tries to do the belly flop maneuver, the fuel tank(s) or lines will rupture as happened last time, and if the abort system engages properly it’ll then basically fall to the ground, or if it doesn’t, it’ll detonate spectacularly in midair again.

Or really put his money where his mouth is and actually sell the Trump Brand rights themselves.

I’m /sure/ that’s not overvalued at all.

Horny Jail:

We’ve got weirdos, creeps, and also everyone who dares to be publicly sex positive!

Don’t worry though, Internet Culture is definitely really progressive and not at all unable to be adults about anything, definitely beyond being sexually repressed and repressive in public and weird and fetishistic in private.

Mhm, knows more about manufacturing than anyone alive on Earth.

I guess it’ll be fun/sad to watch StarShip 3 either detonate on the launch pad or before it passes the Karman Line.

Sorry, the Streisand has been summoned:

YeeeeeeeHAAAWWWW!!!

Well you have to put the two together to make what I figured your argument was, so I apparently do not understand your argument.

…which always manifests itself as causing material harm to the working class, to the non capital owners.

The logic of for profit businesses, especially in the American legal framework, is known to reward the most ruthless with the positions of the most power in the company, and this gets dramatically amplified the more money is at stake.

And these people, empirically and historically, as well as theoretically from a psychological and basics of running a business / economics standpoint…

They will always lay people off and go through a restructuring phase to focus on the fundamentals. These days the CEO and VPs do not even take meaningful, if any, pay cuts. There are some counter examples to this in some other countries where cultural norms are vastly different, but in America, in the last decade in particular? It’s basically always the owner capital class extracting wealth from the workers and then shedding them off when its time to.

And I say that that constitutes harm. And is thus hateful.

Time and time again we see all sorts of for profit businesses laying off workers, overworking them, underpaying them, micromanaging their non work lives, trying to instill a culture that they are their job, that there is no real non work life, cutting corners of all kinds that result in consumers overpaying for flawed products or services… etc etc.

I suppose you can take the philosophical angle that the system itself is amoral, mechanicistically speaking.

But I would argue two points:

1. A vast and all encompassing system should be looked at both mechanistically, internally, as well as externally, or in totality.

It doesnt matter what the inner mechanisms of a system are if they continuously and predictably cause massive harm to many people in many ways, some that are direct and obvious, and others that are indirect, less obvious and more gradual.

2. There are human beings, people, that make the decisions to lay people off, to cut safety corners, to price hike, to lie to the media and consumers. And there are people who suffer from all this. When a person does something that harms another, I call that malice, ill will, hate or cruelty, especially on the scale and of the scope that so often happens in large for profit enterprises. They are moral actors regardless of what their excuses are, harming other human beings with a capacity to feel and think and have emotions.

In its grand totality, the system uses and abuses the many, and benefits the few.

Whats worse is that its logic has now fundamentally overriden any possible communal species wide survival mechanism as it has now warmed the Earth beyond the tipping point of being able to stop climate change, ensuring even more harm.

Lemme guess, anyone who uses any kind of technological device to post on lemmy is using something likely built in a sweatshop?

So thus because no one is without sin, its not possible to be a morally better person than anyone else?

The /function/ of these stupid naming schemes, despite whatever explanation is proffered as to their origin, is exactly as you have pointed out:

It takes time to learn all this lingo, which makes people tend toward ‘specializing’ in that ecosystem, which makes you more hesitant to migrate or attempt to interface with some other software ecosystem with its own separate lingo.

It also serves to make you feel stupid for not understanding it, basically in the same way a group of friends laughing at an in joke that you dont understand makes you feel like a lesser member of the group.

Lots and lots of programmers, db admins, etc, are basically low social skills or on the autism spectrum, so keeping people feeling low on the social pecking order makes them easier to boss around, makes them more likely to accept ludicrous and technically inefficient solutions, accept being paid far less than what they are worth, etc.