Do you believe in Mario?

[Nintendoobsessed]

This may seem like a childish question, but after studying the Multiverse Theory, my 7-year old fantasies are returning to me. If you haven't heard of it, the Multiverse Theory states that thier are Quadrillions of universes. These alternate universes are created when a random event happens. Ex: You flip a coin. The Universe splits. In one universe, the coin lands on heads. In another, the coin lands on tails. This theory can lead to extreme ideas, such as the Earth never being created, or even, different species on Earth. With so many universes, I find it near-certain that somewhere, thier is a reality similar to Mario's...perhaps even exactly like it. So...What's your opinion?

[missingno]

I'll believe anything.

[goodie]

My opinion is that the Multiverse Theory is totally dumb.

[Luigison]

You're insane.

[Kuromatsu]

You made my head a splode with your logic.

At that, another Universe is upon us.

[BP]

Random events don't really happen. When you flip a coin, the way you drop it, any imbalance in the coin's weight, time, the surface it hits, wind... the coin's flipper can't force it to land one way or another, nor can the flip really be perfectly replicated, so it's considered random. Same with pulling a marble out of a bag--it's not like the marble is changing up until the moment you touch it.

So there goes that theory. But I'm sure there are other planets within life-supporting distance of their stars elsewhere in the universe. That doesn't mean I'm so sure one of them has a few humans (some of which with pointy ears and jagged mustaches), a variety of turtle-like entities, and walking brown mushrooms. Maybe something on a planet out there looks like a Goomba, but I wouldn't place any bets on Koopa-like things being there as well.

[Nintendoobsessed]

Random events don't really happen. When you flip a coin, the way you drop it, any imbalance in the coin's weight, time, the surface it hits, wind... the coin's flipper can't force it to land one way or another, nor can the flip really be perfectly replicated, so it's considered random. Same with pulling a marble out of a bag--it's not like the marble is changing up until the moment you touch it.

What about the Cat thoery? Until you look in the box, thier could be a dead cat, or alive cat, at the same time.

[Lizard Dude]

Is the arrangement of marbles in Bird Person's bag dependent on the state of a subatomic particle?

I don't think you actually know what you're talking about.

[Kojinka]

Define 'believe'

[BP]

Hmm, well... you could shake the box and see if it meows, or feel it to see if there's any warmth coming from a living cat... what in the heck kind of theory is that? Just because no one can see the cat in the box, it's completely random whether it's alive or dead? It'd be logical if, provided the cat had something to eat recently, a sufficient supply of breathable air, and no gooey bombs stuck to it, the cat were alive. It'd be logical if, given that the cat were low on food, had no oxygen, and did have gooey bombs stuck to it, the cat were dead. There's also the possibility that the box contains no cats, but that's not a random occurrence either.

Also,
There = Over there
They're = They are
Their = Possessive
Thier isn't a word. I'm sorry... you've awoken the Grammar Queen. And MaxVance is the Grammar Princess, remember? Good times...

[Suffix]

There's no such thing as "cat theory." There's Schrodinger's Cat, which relates to the state of an unobserved cat whose life depends on the atomic decay of a particle that has a 50% chance of emitting radiation. It is said that while unobserved, this sort of particle exists in multiple states, one for each possible outcome (in this case, emission or no emission). The idea if Schrodinger's cat was to show that quantum mechanics is weird, and the cat cannot really be both "alive and dead--" quite the opposite of what Mr. Obsessed was saying!

[Nintendoobsessed]

Can someone completely destroy this topic, so I can go pout in shame?

[ShadowBrain]

I could go on and on about quantum mechanics, singularities, the fourth dimension, and the Chaos Theory (Law of Chaos is more like it!), but I don't feel like it. Thus, I'll just say that I support the idea of alternate universes, but I seriously doubt that any amount of coin-flipping, cat poisoning, and/or butterfly wing-flapping has produced a world where man-eating plants live in pipes.

Also, my knowledge of the aforementioned topics is limited mostly to William Sleator/Michael Crichton books and some Wikipedia articles. However, I think I know more about said topics than anyone else in my school. However again, my school is--by and large--dumb.

[Captain Jim]

If this is true, Daisy exists.
Please don't be right.

[BP]

Defining the word universe literally, there can really only be one. It basically means, "E·V·E·R·Y·T·H·I·N·G." So, if it exists, it's in the universe.

So you're all thinking alternate realities. But if something exists in an alternate reality, then it's still not real as far as the reality where we exist is concerned. Maybe by that logic, alternate realities aren't real either. So what I'm saying is, it has to either exist someplace else in the universe, or it's not real, or at least we shouldn't be worrying about it. I've never really written all this out, or even taken the time to think of realities and universes and stuff. I'm thinking new things... difficult things... from now...