random item

Troperville

Tools

Find recent edits by troper:

back to: Headscratchers / AlternateUniverse

edit article | go to discussion page

22nd Apr '13 10:21:45 PM urutapu

Send urutapu a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:

to:

4th Feb '13 5:14:46 PM atheist723

Send atheist723 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 2 (click to see context) :

2nd Dec '12 9:47:44 AM SeanRenaud

Send SeanRenaud a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 19 (click to see context) from:

to:

*** Seconded.  I would have put this in the WMG but it doesn't seem to exist.  I'm fairly certain that while it doesn't ALWAYS work that way that individuals have some sort of "frequency" for a lack of better terms that draws you to alternate universes that share more things than they don't with your home universe.  It explains why so many alternate universes have alternate versions of the protagonist, why the same governments are almost always in charge etc, etc.  It's incredibly rare to enter a universe that feels entirely foreign for just that reason even though there is no particular reason why even the continents would look the same in every verse, much less that they seem to be almost exclusively filled with common speaking humanoids of roughly the same technology often with a doppleganger of the traveler.  In short Sliding (or whatever term you choose to apply) is much less random than it is presented as (not that it helps much since infinite is still infinite even if you're limited to the more congruent parts of it.)

20th Nov '12 7:16:36 PM qetuos

Send qetuos a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 47 (click to see context) from:

to:

* ''Theoretically'' you could make any choice and thus have a different universe split off from that choice, but ''practically'' some choices are always going to be limited by certain factors. In this case, presumably the 'choice' to eat the ice-cream or not is going to be limited by the fact that you are aware of your allergy to milk, are thus are aware that the ice-cream will cause you pain and discomfort if not outright death, are not a masochist who enjoys the sensation of pain that will be caused by eating the ice-cream, do not wish to risk death by eating the ice-cream, and so on. Theoretically, you ''could'' say 'screw the pain, I like the taste so I'll eat it anyway', but practically the 'choice' that is on offer will mostly likely essentially cease to be a choice to all intents and purposes, since commonsense dictates that you're probably not going to eat the ice cream in any case, and thus a different universe won't be split off from it.
** As explained with the post below, the particles would affect the neuron's path, but you still wouldn't do anything against your nature.
* This really has to do with all off the ideas. In theory, it seems everything is determined by classical mechanics, so the universe runs like clockwork. Every choice you make is determined. But in reality, according to quantum mechanics, an elementary particle has chances of taking certain routes, but it is impossible to detect. Every time a particle goes to move, it splits into every possibility as a universe.

9th Nov '12 10:34:18 AM TypoKiller

Send TypoKiller a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:

to:

28th May '12 8:20:34 AM DoctorNemesis

Send DoctorNemesis a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 46 (click to see context) from:

to:

But what about choices made on logic? If I decide "I could eat this ice cream, but I'm allergic to milk so I shouldn't", is an alternate universe formed where I eat it anyway and inflict pain upon myself? Would there be billions of alternate universes where everyone functions on InsaneTrollLogic?
* ''Theoretically'' you could make any choice and thus have a different universe split off from that choice, but ''practically'' some choices are always going to be limited by certain factors. In this case, presumably the 'choice' to eat the ice-cream or not is going to be limited by the fact that you are aware of your allergy to milk, are thus are aware that the ice-cream will cause you pain and discomfort if not outright death, are not a masochist who enjoys the sensation of pain that will be caused by eating the ice-cream, do not wish to risk death by eating the ice-cream, and so on. Theoretically, you ''could'' say 'screw the pain, I like the taste so I'll eat it anyway', but practically the 'choice' that is on offer will mostly likely essentially cease to be a choice to all intents and purposes, since commonsense dictates that you're probably not going to eat the ice cream in any case, and thus a different universe won't be split off from it.

27th Apr '12 9:55:59 PM Tuckerscreator

Send Tuckerscreator a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 35 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 42 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 44 (click to see context) from:

to:

17th Jan '12 12:18:23 AM DoctorNemesis

Send DoctorNemesis a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 32,33 (click to see context) from:

to:

17th Jan '12 12:15:21 AM DoctorNemesis

Send DoctorNemesis a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 32 (click to see context) from:

to:

8th Jan '12 6:46:46 PM GreatWyrmGold

Send GreatWyrmGold a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Wild-Mass Guessed

Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:

to:

This list shows the last 10 events of 27. Show all.

new edits

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy