STRONGEST One-Punch Man Discussion Thread!

[Recon1511]

Do you think we have Japanese fans on fast call or something?

 

[darkphantom9805]

Do you think we have Japanese fans on fast call or something?

with how popular this series is yes

 

[Alexander]

with how popular this series is yes

You are really that hopeful?

 

[darkphantom9805]

You are really that hopeful?

Considering we won’t have anything else for the 2 month break yes

 

[Franako]

 

[Recon1511]

The inside cover joke lmao

 

[Pepsiman25th]

happy birthday murata

 

[RinneItachi]

Man only now is the 2 month hiatus dawning on me. So much misery...but I hope Murata having a good b-day.

 

[Redcated]

I feel bad for the physical volume readers

 

[Recon1511]

 

[Lightning_XXI]

Is anyone here also collecting the physical volumes ? These bonus stuff are really something else

Anyway, have anyone posted a thread to add the current stuff we have for this arc ? This 2 month break can be useful if we use it to apply everything in two parts and avoid adding everything into a single CRT

 

[Recon1511]

 

[Recon1511]

 

[darkphantom9805]

Did the sperm fight get any differences?

 

[Recon1511]

No

 

[MrTayman616]

he was also an animator for the season 2 of opm yes?

i wonder if this is his "fan-made" production or a sneak from the original season 3, since it would mean season 3 would have 24 episode or so.

though it doesn't make sense considering the volumes.

 

[Alexander]

It would be a f u c k i n g Happy day in hell

 

[Recon1511]

 

[RinneItachi]

Sad that it is quite literally a strict downgrade from the online version.

 

[Worthless]

I know with the current info it's just 2A atm, but If the OPM cosmology were actually based on MWI, it could be more than just 2A, no? I've seen a lot ppl saying it ranges anywhere between 2A to high 1B.

 

[Phoenks]

I know with the current info it's just 2A atm, but If the OPM cosmology were actually based on MWI, it could be more than just 2A, no? I've seen a lot ppl saying it ranges anywhere between 2A to high 1B.

MWI is Low 1-C. Infinite branching points that diverge infinitely results in uncountable universes.

Idk how High 1-B would be given.

 

[MrTayman616]

MWI is Low 1-C. Infinite branching points that diverge infinitely results in uncountable universes.

Idk how High 1-B would be given.

based on the space that contains the MWI multiverse is hilbert space.

 

[Qawsedf234]

MWI is Low 1-C. Infinite branching points that diverge infinitely results in uncountable universes.

That's just 2-A. You'd need to have a 2-A space as the baseline to get Low 1-C afaik.

 

[Phoenks]

That's just 2-A. You'd need to have a 2-A space as the baseline to get Low 1-C afaik.

It's not just 2-A.

It's like the MCU Multiverse, essentially. Each point in time (which there is an infinite amount of) diverges into infinite branches, which themselves diverge into infinite branches, so on and so fourth.

Even wikipedia mentions the number being uncountable.

 

[Qawsedf234]

It's like the MCU Multiverse, essentially. Each point in time (which there is an infinite amount of) diverges into infinite branches, which themselves diverge into infinite branches, so on and so fourth

The MCU is Low 1-C because a Timeline is 2-A at base, which then has branches that go on forever. So it's starting at infinite 4D before the recursive stuff happens. OPM doesn't currently have that.

 

[Phoenks]

The MCU is Low 1-C because a Timeline is 2-A at base, which then has branches that go on forever. So it's starting at infinite 4D before the recursive stuff happens. OPM doesn't currently have that.

I'm not talking about OPM. I'm talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics in the real world...

Also, the number of universes it starts with doesn't matter, mathematically speaking. I don't know why it would. It ends up being the same uncountable cardinal regardless of if you start with 1 or aleph-0 universes.

The 1 universe immediately becomes infinite universes anyway in the next infinitesimal unit of time, since it branches out with all the quantum possibilities, which there are an infinite number off. And then you repeat the same math and end up with Aleph-1 universes regardless.

Donno why the starting count would matter. It isn't the number you start with that makes it uncountable, it's the fact that you repeatedly multiply that set of space-time by infinity an infinite amount of times.

You are basically comparing

1 x infinity^infinity

To

Infinity x Infinity^infinity

Both of these are mathematically equal to Aleph-1

 

[Qawsedf234]

Even wikipedia mentions the number being uncountable.

Wikipedia gives two sources. Checking them they are

The Origin of the Everettian Heresy". Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 40 (2): 97–123.

And

Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality.

The former article says this

In the last two decades, several commentators (e.g. Barrett, 1999; Kent, 1990) have pointed out that Everett’s argument is wanting. There is perhaps no need of a statistical postulate in order to ‘‘interpret’’ each branch of the universal wave function individually, i.e. to state which occurrences in the ‘‘perceived world’’ that particular branch describes. Yet, the theory provides us with infinite branches, and this is the formal structure from which we have to extract empirical information. Here we need what Everett calls the ‘‘interpretive part’’ of the theory. As a matter of fact, Everett does use an interpretive rule in his deduction, which is similar to that of classical statistical mechanics, although logically weaker. Unlike the measure of the set of trajectories in the phase space of statistical mechanics, the measure of the set of branches is not straightforwardly interpreted as a statistical weight for empirical statements.

He concluded that any such element can be identified as ‘‘what we think of as an experience’’, and that ‘‘it is tenable to assert that all the elements simultaneously coexist.’’ To the remark of Podolsky: ‘‘It looks like we would have a non-denumerable infinity of worlds’’, Everett answered: ‘‘Yes.’’ (Proceedings of the Conference on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Xavier University, Cincinnati,1962; deposited at the American Institute of Physics.)

Which is just 2-A. The only time an uncountable infinite is introduced is here

Secondly, one must be able to deduce, from the model provided by the universal wave function at a given instant, that (R) has probability 1 of being true. Everett assumes that this second condition is fulfilled if the set of the branches in which the state of O’s memory contradicts (R) has vanishing measure in the Hilbert space. As for the measure to be used, Everett proposes, on the basis of a plausibility argument that he finds compelling, a function which is analogous to the probability function appearing in the Born rule. This choice enables Everett to claim that, in the case in which O has performed the same measurement upon an infinite collection of identical systems, the statistical results predicted by the conventional theory are recovered (since they correspond to the statistical distribution recorded by all memory sequences ‘‘except for a set [y] of measure zero’’).

Which requires that you prove Hilbert Space mathematics exist within the cosmology.

The second source literally just gives what our version of 2-A is based on

Firstly, imagine a world consisting of a very thin, infinitely long and wide, slab of matter, in which various complex internal processes are occurring — up to and including the presence of intelligent life, if you like. In particular one might imagine various forces acting in the plane of the slab, between one part and another.

Now, imagine stacking many thousands of these slabs one atop the other, but without allowing them to interact at all. If this is a “many-worlds theory”, it is a many-worlds theory only in the sense of the philosopher David Lewis (Lewis 1986): none of the worlds are dynamically in contact, and no (putative) inhabitant of any world can gain empirical evidence about any other

So the source Wikipedia gives wouldn't automatically translate to every verse with MWI have an uncountable infinite number of worlds.

The 1 universe immediately becomes infinite universes anyway in the next infinitesimal unit of time, since it branches out with all the quantum possibilities, which there are an infinite number off. And then you repeat the same math and end up with Aleph-1 universes regardless.

What you described is a countable infinity. Since the numbers can be organized in a [A, B, C] fashion. You wouldn't get an uncountable number with that method.

 

[Phoenks]

I explained the math of this in this MLP thread which intended to upgrade a multiverse similar to MWI to Low 1-C.

Is My Little Pony Low 1-C? Let's Find Out.

I'm a bit bored right now, so let's try this. On this thread it was brought up that MLP could not only qualify for 2-A (Which is currently accepted), but Low 1-C. I will explain why. I would like to premise this by saying I want to keep this thread short and to the point. One of my issues with...

vsbattles.com

You end up with Aleph 1 because you are multiplying Aleph-0 (number of universes obtained after a single branch) by Aleph-0 (the branches each multiply out to infinite more branches) and Aleph-0 amount of times (this happens at every point in time across an infinite timeline)

This results in Aleph-0^Aleph-0, which is Aleph-1

Whether you multiply that by another Aleph-0 (assuming you start with 2-A) or by 1 (assuming you start with Low 2-C), it remains mathematically equivalent.

 

[Qawsedf234]

https://vsbattles.com/threads/is-my-little-pony-low-1-c-lets-find-out.158192/

This is broken link wise

EDIT: You fixed the link ignore

You end up with Aleph 1 because you are multiplying Aleph-0 (number of universes obtained after a single branch) by Aleph-0 (the branches each multiply out to infinite more branches) and Aleph-0 amount of times (this happens at every point in time across an infinite timeline)

That's not how that works to my understanding. Infinity^3 is still equal to Infinity. Even Infinity^Infinity is just Infinity because of Set Theory.

The point of the branches is recursion giving you a power set or the ability to reach a Real Number Set of universes, which are uncountable. Which is why MWI doesn't give you an uncountable infinite in the majority of cases.

 

[Phoenks]

That's not how that works to my understanding. Infinity^3 is still equal to Infinity. Even Infinity^Infinity is just Infinity because of Set Theory

This isn't infinity^3. That would just be infinity x infinity x infinity.

Here you are multiplying by infinity an infinite amount of times.

That is infinity x infinity x infinity x infinity... Forever. I explained that on the thread.

This is infinity^infinity.

I also explained on the thread this is Aleph-1 in set theory due to "Continuum Hypothesis" which is taken as a fact on this wiki.

Continuum Hypothesis in simple terms says that 2^Aleph-0 is Aleph-1. Thus, Aleph-0^Aleph-0 is also Aleph-1.

 

[Qawsedf234]

This isn't infinity^3. That would just be infinity x infinity x infinity.

Which is still 2-A. Since you can go: Natural -> Integer which is still a set of countable infinities despite one being larger than the other.

Continuum Hypothesis in simple terms says that 2^Aleph-0 is Aleph-1. Thus, Aleph-0^Aleph-0 is also Aleph-1.

No, Continuum Hypothesis is that you can't have a set of Rational numbers. It would either be a set Integers or Real numbers, which is a countable and uncountable infinity respectively. Infinity^infinity still wouldn't be an uncountable set afaik, since it would be contained within an Integer Set.

 

[Phoenks]

Which is still 2-A. Since you can go: Natural -> Integer which is still a set of countable infinities despite one being larger than the other.

Did you read my next sentence. I'm saying what I said is not just Infinity^3. Sigh.

No, Continuum Hypothesis is that you can't have a set of Rational numbers. It would be Integers or Real numbers, which is a countable and uncountable infinity respectively.

Are you reading the wrong thing?

Vsauce explains what I'm saying in this video.



At around the 17 minute mark.


Also, wikipedia cites the same thing.

Continuum hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Qawsedf234]

Did you read my next sentence. I'm saying what I said is not just Infinity^3. Sigh.

I did but I was working off a different idea.

Are you reading the wrong thing?

I don't think so. The point about it is that there's nothing between the cardinal sets. It's either a countable infinity or an uncountable infinity that keeps increasing.

Though for infinity^infinity you're right that it would go into Aleph-1 since it would reach an unmeasurable number. Though to the best of my knowledge that still doesn't mean MWI defaults to Low 1-C since you'd need to prove more things about it as MWI still has different interpretations of how it actually works.

 

[Phoenks]

I don't think so. The point about it is that there's nothing between the cardinal sets. It's either a countable infinity or an uncountable infinity that keeps increasing.

This is part of the continuum Hypothesis yeah. But the 2^Aleph-0 thing is a pretty important part lol.

Though for infinity^infinity you're right that it would go into Aleph-1 since it would reach an unmeasurable number. Though to the best of my knowledge that still doesn't mean MWI defaults to Low 1-C since you'd need to prove more things about it as MWI still has different interpretations of how it actually works.

I mean MWI doesn't default to Low 1-C simply because fiction doesn't tend to stick to the interpretation faithfully a lot of the time/we tend to go with the most low balled version of things.

It's like how we used to put Ultimate Ensembles/Type IV Multiverses in Low 1-A to High 1-A, despite the actual interpretation encompassing literally all of mathematics. Or how we didn't assume Platonic Forms were some crazy high tier.

Obviously with the newer tiering system this is not longer an issue (I think), but yeah it's just that fiction doesn't really stick to the theories a lot of the time.

Pretty sure MWI as it exists generally in quantum mechanics is just Low 1-C though. Potentially even higher.

 

[Alexander]

oh great, now a fight for infinities

 

[Epiccheev]

Pain: My infinity is much bigger than yours, Naruto!!!

 

[BeTheWay1rst]

Snip

What if the universe is 11-dimensional (Gurren Lagann universe)? Does that means we get to 1-B by using MWI(Multiverse Labyrinth) ?

 

[Phoenks]

What if the universe is 11-dimensional (Gurren Lagann universe)? Does that means we get to 1-B by using MWI(Multiverse Labyrinth) ?

Idk. I mean, personally, I would say yeah. But staffs on this wiki are strict as fuuuck

 

[Qawsedf234]

What if the universe is 11-dimensional (Gurren Lagann universe)? Does that means we get to 1-B by using MWI(Multiverse Labyrinth) ?

No. Because the Labyrinth wouldn't qualify for an stacked infinity chain.

 

[BeTheWay1rst]

Snip

How ?