If you can't observe it it's not there!

[RQ]

This is just to explain the fact that if a certain particle or whatever was to be in our universe, if it has no effect on the universe it's quite simply not there. In our case with 0 time, where we know that matter was there before we hit the jackpot of 0 time, would that make the matter nonexistent (that is if all particles in our universe were at 0 time)? The answer is both yes and no. To avoid this paradox, God simply put it forward and said, "There is no 0 time, so don't waste time arguing about it!"

[jinydu]

Perhaps I explained the continuum idea poorly. According to that idea, its possible to make arbitrarily small slices of spacetime.

Therefore, you can (in theory) observe events happening 10^-100 seconds apart. If that's not close enough, make that time 10^-1000000000000000 seconds, or 10^-googolplex seconds, or 10^-(Graham's Number) seconds. 0 time is just a shorthand way of saying "take the limit as time approaches 0".

[Geosphere]

So, germs don't exist until they actually get someone sick?

Pluto didn't exist in 1800?

Until something has observable effects, it isn't real?

[RQ]

0 time should not mean 0 time plus some measurable time.
germs have effects, Pluto had an effect too. True, he wasn't there in 1800, but the molecules that made him up are not lost, as the 1st law of thermodynamics explains. Just because as a person he wasn't there doesnt mean he has no effects!

[jinydu]

True, he wasn't there in 1800, but the molecules that made him up are not lost, as the 1st law of thermodynamics explains. Just because as a person he wasn't there doesnt mean he has no effects!

Just wondering. Which person are you talking about?

[RQ]

Plato, as Geosphere put forward, he wasn't there in 1800, but he wasn't there as a person.

[PWrong]

Lol. I think he meant Pluto the planet. But of course Pluto had effects too, before we discovered it. It would have affected orbits and stuff. But it also affects us, because the matter has to be somewhere. If it's not somewhere we can't see it, it must be somewhere we can see. And if it's not anywhere, we have to explain the missing matter, so the sudden absense of Pluto causes astrophysicists to lose their jobs. The absense will also cause horoscopes to suggest mass-suicide for a particular starsign. Non-existance is just as observable as existance.

Another way to put it is this. You say that anything we can't observe doesn't exist. Once we look, it appears out of nowhere. By the same logic, I can say that everything we can't observe does exist. Once we look at it, it disappears.

There's one more counter-argument. The universe is not observable by anything outside the universe. Therefore nothing exists.

[RQ]

Your logic is flawed because our universe exists with respect to our perception. With respect to the perception of whatever might be outside assuming a parallel universe, we don't exist. You never know, maybe we don't. Since it has no observable consequences to that parallel universe, we are nothing. That is the definition of Occam's razor, and that is what I tried to emphasize since so many people keep bringing up arguments assuming there is no Occam's razor.

There is an interesting point of observation here though. If indeed, let us assume, that there was a parallel universe. Now, since they can't observe us, would that really make us = to nothing or would it just be a separate universe as the definition suggests. If the answer seems obvious and the question's purpose is vague, consider this:

The Big Crunch has come. There is no usable energy in the universe and all particles are at absolute 0. Now, there's a piece of cloth, and we are near it. There are no particles that can be emitted or reflected off of its surface to carry the information, such as sound, light. The question is, would the object be there, just because we knew it was there 2 minutes before the Big Crunch? Would you say it was? Really, because according to Einstein, if there is no time, there is no space, and if there is no velocity, there is no time, and if there is no energy, there is no velocity, so how could there be an object, if there is no space-time? Is that Russell's paradox?

This however doesn't answer the question of observability between universes, or does to some extent, and then I went in a different direction.

If there are people in a universe parallel to us in flat 4D hyperspace, then if they can't observe us, then are we here? Don't be afraid to accept the fact that we might be a figment of somebody's imagination. After all, we might not have souls.

If we are here and we can't observe them, then they're not there not to observe us, however if they were there not to observe us, then we wouldn't be here to not to observe them. I think it's safe to say that if they can't observe us, we're still here. Then again, can we both not be here? What if there was a third universe? Ah who am I kidding, nobody's gonna even try to read this crap, screw this.

Edit by BobXP: removed double post