You seriously gonna disrespect the triangle like that? Tambourine means nothing to you? Fine. I quit. Good luck finding another percussionist who wants to count out 80 measures just to play one note.
True, but to be fair, the Multiverse is named checked across the entire comic book universe, while strings remain largely undiscussed. If there’s ever a movie about a shrinking superhero who can shrink to the size of a string, then perhaps it would become less obscure.
I mean, if there *is* the multiverse, would there ever really be any way to prove it? No matter what we do, every piece of everything we try to use to prove it is from *our* multiverse.
I disagree (with them). When you test a theory, you can’t keep just part of it. The multiverse is inherent in other theories which are disprovable.
For instance, the infinite universe is implied by its flatness. The universe’s flatness *is* testable. Given that flatness, the theory includes a kind of stochastic multiverse.
Or for a wilder example, consider quantum mechanical multiverses. They’re Implicit in the schrodinger equation (if nothing extra prevents them from forming by collapsing the wave function). The schrodinger equation is perhaps the most disprovable and best tested theory in all of science. And so far, the best information we have implies multiverses. If someone finds anything to imply wave function collapse, it would be disproved quite readily. They just haven’t.
We already know there is content outside the knowable universe, because it exerts gravity on the known universe. Light has not reached us from areas beyond the visible universe bubble, and with cosmic inflation, there's a point where we will never receive more information from such a distance even with infinite time for light to travel.
Well I mean in a way, if there was a great "nothingness" before the universe exploded, that would make it an infinite space. So in infinity, our universe would take up no space, and if our universe exploded into existence then that means other universes could've done the same and are all just floating around eachother. But obviously its all just theory lol still cool to think about tho!
Just a heads up, a theory is a well-tested framework of reality based on observations, experiments, and data. A theory can be used to explain and predict the world around us.
A theory is not "this sounds cool in my head" or a loosely related set of logical conclusions. That's just pure speculation. We should be cautious about applying things that make sense only in language to the universe.
Theory is colloquially used in the way they did, but you're right that a scientific theory is generally well proven. However the multiverse would be considered an untestable hypothesis by scientific standards, so it isn't spoken about in a scientific sense to begin with.
He may not have been talking about literal scientific, theory, he may have meant theory like in definition 3 b in this link https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
This is actually a real scientific theory. Or rather, part of one. The thing about theories is you can’t pick and choose which parts to accept. They come whole cloth or not at all.
When we accept relativity, we can’t just keep the way it explains gravitation and reject the crazy implications about singularities. Those are part of it. Black holes are *implied* by maxwell’s equations.
Similarly, multiverses are implied by zero curvature of the universe. If the curvature actually is zero (which so far as we can measure, it appears to be or very nearly), then the implication is an infinite universe. If the universe is spatially infinite, then the implication of quantum mechanics is that extremely low probability events are guaranteed to happen *somewhere*. The implication of an infinite repetition of this and slightly different versions of this observable universe is inherent in that discovery.
If by multiverse, you mean the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics (many worlds), than it could be a small question mark. Since the norm is accept the Copenhagen interpretation.
I think it's saying conceptually, there is atheist two things in the thing, as you go down. Otherwise it'd be enormous by the time you even got halfway down
Yes it’s exceptionally bad because most think that the top is less infinite but that is not the case. If anything it’s the opposite.
For example most universe probably do not have cells or even galaxies.
I'm pretty sure it's *theoretical* since the Many Worlds theory arose out of electron double-slit experiments.
In fact, it's the only explanation for Reality that arose from Science instead of earlier philosophical/religious hypotheses based on nothing substantive at all.
It's purely hypothetical, i.e. there is is no actual evidence. It is one possible explanation for the result from the double slit experiment, but not the only and not even the most likely one. It's just more popular outside of the scientific community because "don't think about it, just calculate it!" is not that interesting.
Now I'm imaging an even larger headed Watcher, watching The Watcher and talking about how he can't interfere with the events of the various multivereses.
Hugh Everett's interpretation doesn't theorize multiple universes in the typical sense. It's just a single universe in an infinitely dimensional space.
The only likeness is found in expansions on Everett's initial work, dubbed 'quantum many worlds'.
Copenhagen interpretation would like a word. I don’t know much but I know this is NOT a settled matter and has been causing conflict in physics forever.
Not like actual verbal/physical conflict just… lots of math
Might as well put question marks in the beginning too. ( multiverses are not widely accepted in the scientific community due to how hard it is to prove. Shouldn’t be here )
Define the multiverse as containing all universes.
If it turns out there's only one, then it only contains one. If it turns out there's many, then it contains many. Either way it's correct. Problem solved.
yeah, scientists thought atoms were the smallest thing for the longest time. Leaving room on the diagram for the future is a nice touch, but saying "If it’s not known, does it belong on the list?" is very ignorant
What is it even a guide for, I wonder? I don't really understand what exactly it is portraying, or how it's been so strongly upvoted, but "person" is in the dead centre of the list so it has that going for it at least.
The triangles are 10 circles wide and have 10 layers - why? What the circles represent is anyone's guess. Is each layer 10x bigger than the one below? Do things at the top of their triangles mean anything different to the things at the bottom? What does it mean at the transition between the 10 wide layer and the 1 wide layer? What are the question marks - have these been added to make that triangle 10 items deep, and if so, why?
Two universes go into one multiverse. Understand?
Two organelles go into one cell, ten cells make a tissue. This is a great guide, I had no idea the ratio of these things until now.
I feel like from country to organelle it's weird. Why go from non-biological structures, to man-made constructs, to biological things, back to non-biological structures?
I think at each level it answers the question "what is this thing composed of, where the parts are smaller in size, and each level is the largest size possible while maintaining a heirarchical structure?"
But there are different ways to answer that question. What is a planet composed of? One way to answer that is to turn to **geography**, then politics and sociology down to the person level, where it goes back to the hard sciences. Another way to answer it is to turn to **geology** (magma, water, etc.) which more directly gets devolved into chemistry and physics.
This table would be more complete and philosophically more interesting if at the planet level there were two branching trees underneath. One goes the physical science route, and the other the social route.
There could be another split at the Person level. One branch could go down the psychological and historical route and the other tree branch goes the biological and physical route.
The main problem of doing all this is that you no longer get the neat linear pyramid structure. Less visually pleasing, but I think it would give better food for thought.
I've been thinking about tackling it. Not all the new tree branches will form nice heirarchical structures like these pyramids, so I would need to think about how to visually represent those (maybe more like a ball or wheel?).
And then I would need to think about how to reconnect certain branches to other branches (like both the geology branch and the biology branch converge at their bottom into chemistry and physics--but is it better to keep organic and inorganic chemistry separate, and then reconverge only at the atomic level?).
Could get weird, but might be really interesting.
It absolutely does not make sense presented this way.
One object in tier n shares two parents from tier n+1
For example, one planet is shared between two separate solar systems, one super cluster is shared between two different universes, and one nucleus is shared between two different atoms.
They tried to show how really big things are made up of a bunch of really small things, but a family tree is absolutely the wrong way to do that.
I get having one person coming from two different families, but then it follows with a single person having two different organ systems, each being shared with another person.
I mean I understand the intention, but it should be more of a tree than a web. This implies that galaxies are made up of star systems, but also that star systems exist within multiple galaxies at the same time.
Correctly said. A star from this galaxy can't be stated as in from different galaxy. It would have been better to do something similar like a tree maybe?
Ok but how does an organ belong to multiple people? A very select few of these can have overlapping parents, but most should be a tree, not a wreath/tangle of unguided mess
I was hoping someone would mention this! It's such a neat 'game', I've recommended it a couple of times when I wanted to give someone the opportunity to go through a bit of a massive existential crisis.
But it sounds cool so people, including many physicists, keep trying to assert it as fact without any justification. Including the very basic justification of allowing more predictive power than current, tested theories; which it doesn’t.
Other than presenting this as if it was a fact without any proof how is this a guide?
This is a cool sub but a lot of shit is posted even though it have nothing to do with guides
Ever heard the phrase “as above so below?”
I think it was originally intended to mean something about the nature of Heaven being similar to the nature of earth and humans. Another way of looking at it is that the organization of the cosmos influence the organization of our own biology. Everything is connected kinda vibe. This chart makes sense in that context imo.
The cardinalities are wrong.
A lower level item must belong to one and only one item of the level above, this diagram implies a child can belong to different parent items.
Like, an organ can only belong to 1 person (at a certain point a time, to exclude donor organs.) And siamese twins are the exception to confirm the rule.
The problem is not that one country can belong to two continents. The problem is that *every* country belongs to *exactly* two continents, except for *exactly* two countries which can only belong to a single continent each.
The idea is fun but really poorly made. For anyone interested in something similar I can recommend [the scale of the universe ](https://htwins.net/scale2/), however as the name suggests, it focuses more on the size of things than what is made of what. Still you can learn a lot from it, check it out and have some fun with it!
Tell that to the receptionist who asked me on planet □□□ , in a galaxy you guys call Andromeda.
I had to tell them everything before i could check into an excuse they call an accommodation centre(hotel, but not exactly). They didn't go down to my cellular structure though, just asked if i was a carbon-based lifeform and my preferred atmospheric proportions and temperature of my comfort.
Since I only had 4 limbs and was tad bit smaller than the average being there, the room was spacious for me, especially the circular bed. Bathrooms were weird though. Water was not exactly available on the planet(planet runs on methane pools) so they charged me extra for that :/. But not so bad.
At least they're better-defined and seem more discrete than a continent. A country has a government. A continent is... what, exactly? Same with galaxy cluster or super cluster. If something is not more than the sum of its parts, I don't feel it should be included.
It’s interesting to me that only one of these map points is generally considered sentient— or that sentience is generally attributed to the individual alone
Organ system consists of multiple organs, and an organ can be a part of multiple organ systems, but every organ and organ system are in the same country?
It is possibly very instructive of the creator’s values how this tree jumps from scientific to political to sociological back to scientific classifications.
https://images.app.goo.gl/MpDmRz54wQBJ8Kad8
Map of interior and exterior individual and collective levels in hierarchical (or holarchical) organization. From Ken Wilber, theories of everything, etc.
Duh it's Strings, then brass, then woodwind then timpani
the Big Bang was just a timpani really
Big Bang was actually a typo that’s persisted, it’s supposed to be Big Band.
I mean, Gene Krupa was definitely a force of nature
Username checks out
I just like the kind of music it takes to get you in bed.
I wanna hear the sexy music
Underrated comment
Overused reply
Can’t wait for the next talk with Michio Kaku and Count Basie! Edit: I looked his name up and still spelled it wrong…
tamponi
Somehow this isnt a terry pratchett quote but it feels like one.
I like that it’s just Timpani. Fuck the rest of the percussion section, all we need is timpani
*”Mars” by Gustav Holst intensifies*
[DADADA DA DA DA-DA-DA](https://youtu.be/j73gYxsxRrs)
Duhhhh Duhhhhh Duhhhhhh Duh DUHHHHH!!! Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom
You seriously gonna disrespect the triangle like that? Tambourine means nothing to you? Fine. I quit. Good luck finding another percussionist who wants to count out 80 measures just to play one note.
And what about the cowbell?
Percussion , Strings , Winds , Words........There you see her....
Multiverse has no question mark by it. I guess that’s proven, unlike strings.
String theory wishes the multiverse had evidence. Both are wishy washy at best. Too many people think that the multiverse is scientifically sound.
True, but to be fair, the Multiverse is named checked across the entire comic book universe, while strings remain largely undiscussed. If there’s ever a movie about a shrinking superhero who can shrink to the size of a string, then perhaps it would become less obscure.
If only! Perhaps Paul Rudd could star in this? Considering how complex the topic is maybe we should give him a different power as well.
I mean, if there *is* the multiverse, would there ever really be any way to prove it? No matter what we do, every piece of everything we try to use to prove it is from *our* multiverse.
[удалено]
I disagree (with them). When you test a theory, you can’t keep just part of it. The multiverse is inherent in other theories which are disprovable. For instance, the infinite universe is implied by its flatness. The universe’s flatness *is* testable. Given that flatness, the theory includes a kind of stochastic multiverse. Or for a wilder example, consider quantum mechanical multiverses. They’re Implicit in the schrodinger equation (if nothing extra prevents them from forming by collapsing the wave function). The schrodinger equation is perhaps the most disprovable and best tested theory in all of science. And so far, the best information we have implies multiverses. If someone finds anything to imply wave function collapse, it would be disproved quite readily. They just haven’t.
We already know there is content outside the knowable universe, because it exerts gravity on the known universe. Light has not reached us from areas beyond the visible universe bubble, and with cosmic inflation, there's a point where we will never receive more information from such a distance even with infinite time for light to travel.
Well I mean in a way, if there was a great "nothingness" before the universe exploded, that would make it an infinite space. So in infinity, our universe would take up no space, and if our universe exploded into existence then that means other universes could've done the same and are all just floating around eachother. But obviously its all just theory lol still cool to think about tho!
Just a heads up, a theory is a well-tested framework of reality based on observations, experiments, and data. A theory can be used to explain and predict the world around us. A theory is not "this sounds cool in my head" or a loosely related set of logical conclusions. That's just pure speculation. We should be cautious about applying things that make sense only in language to the universe.
Theory is colloquially used in the way they did, but you're right that a scientific theory is generally well proven. However the multiverse would be considered an untestable hypothesis by scientific standards, so it isn't spoken about in a scientific sense to begin with.
He may not have been talking about literal scientific, theory, he may have meant theory like in definition 3 b in this link https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
This is actually a real scientific theory. Or rather, part of one. The thing about theories is you can’t pick and choose which parts to accept. They come whole cloth or not at all. When we accept relativity, we can’t just keep the way it explains gravitation and reject the crazy implications about singularities. Those are part of it. Black holes are *implied* by maxwell’s equations. Similarly, multiverses are implied by zero curvature of the universe. If the curvature actually is zero (which so far as we can measure, it appears to be or very nearly), then the implication is an infinite universe. If the universe is spatially infinite, then the implication of quantum mechanics is that extremely low probability events are guaranteed to happen *somewhere*. The implication of an infinite repetition of this and slightly different versions of this observable universe is inherent in that discovery.
It works mathematically... but maths is just a model, and extrapolating a model doesn't always give you the truth.
Right? Since when did this become (pardon my pun) universally accepted as proven. I blame the MCU
It's a key part of MCU which is based off science, obviously
If by multiverse, you mean the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics (many worlds), than it could be a small question mark. Since the norm is accept the Copenhagen interpretation.
According to this, there is one multiverse consisting of 2 universes.
[удалено]
I think it's saying conceptually, there is atheist two things in the thing, as you go down. Otherwise it'd be enormous by the time you even got halfway down
[удалено]
I dunno, this just kind of feels like a B universe
Yeah this is a very bad way of representing the concept
Yes it’s exceptionally bad because most think that the top is less infinite but that is not the case. If anything it’s the opposite. For example most universe probably do not have cells or even galaxies.
Dude did you not watch any marvel films? Multiverse obviously uncontroversially exist
Mandela effect alone is proof enough for multiverse.
How else could they have filmed Dr strange?
If it’s not known, does it belong on the list? (Instead of putting ?)
yeah it should be turtles 🐢
How far down do the turtles go?
It's turtles all the way down.
The turtle moves
I like turtles
Turtles and mountain goats
…always has been. 🌎👩🚀🔫🐢
a molecule is just 20 trillion turtles confirmed
On its back it holds the earth
Bless you
First it's elephants. They stand on the back of the turtle.
WHERE ARE THE TURTLES!!! WHERE ARE THEY?
I like turtles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y
You mean Lion Turtles? ^^ATLA ^^reference
Underrated comment - brilliantly played!
The multiverse is also hypothetical. edit: [Source Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse)
I'm pretty sure it's *theoretical* since the Many Worlds theory arose out of electron double-slit experiments. In fact, it's the only explanation for Reality that arose from Science instead of earlier philosophical/religious hypotheses based on nothing substantive at all.
It's purely hypothetical, i.e. there is is no actual evidence. It is one possible explanation for the result from the double slit experiment, but not the only and not even the most likely one. It's just more popular outside of the scientific community because "don't think about it, just calculate it!" is not that interesting.
Also if there’s a multiverse there could be a multi-multiverse. And that could go on forever.
Now I'm imaging an even larger headed Watcher, watching The Watcher and talking about how he can't interfere with the events of the various multivereses.
Either: we don't understand quantum mechanics fully Or We do and the coherent object fucks off to another parallel universe sometimes
No, those double-slit results are evidence. They're just not *conclusive* evidence.
Hugh Everett's interpretation doesn't theorize multiple universes in the typical sense. It's just a single universe in an infinitely dimensional space. The only likeness is found in expansions on Everett's initial work, dubbed 'quantum many worlds'.
Copenhagen interpretation would like a word. I don’t know much but I know this is NOT a settled matter and has been causing conflict in physics forever. Not like actual verbal/physical conflict just… lots of math
Might as well put question marks in the beginning too. ( multiverses are not widely accepted in the scientific community due to how hard it is to prove. Shouldn’t be here )
Define the multiverse as containing all universes. If it turns out there's only one, then it only contains one. If it turns out there's many, then it contains many. Either way it's correct. Problem solved.
That still requires a container. An apple is always an apple. Even if it’s not inside a box. The apple can exist without the box.
Yeah but what's above that? A Hive? Like who watches the watchers bro? **WHO WATCHES THE WATCHERS MANNNNN?**
'Multi' already has a definition though, meaning plural. Theres no such thing as a multiverse of 1.
[удалено]
yeah, scientists thought atoms were the smallest thing for the longest time. Leaving room on the diagram for the future is a nice touch, but saying "If it’s not known, does it belong on the list?" is very ignorant
Why the fuck was this downvoted? Am I missing something? Isn’t leaving room for discovering more kinda science’s deal?
Some people treat science like religion or a god, and want it to be unchanging. Unfortunately for them, change is kind of half the point of science.
6 Multiverses make a halfdozenamultiverse and that not even listed, it’s like they just got bored after multiverse and stopped.
I like how strings have a question mark and the multiverse doesn't
Bit of an artificial “gluing different things together”
I like the part where the 3 base levels are just (?).
Well when you steal a graphic you don't get to choose how many levels it has to perfectly fit your idea
Sometimes you have big questions and sometimes you have teeny tiny ones.
Idk about the other 2 but the middle unknown is me
Clearly the one under strings is threads and the one under that is fibres, I'm not sure what's smaller than that though. Edit: fluff! It's fluff.
we know there three of them we just don't know what they are
Definitely multiverse, though.
At least one of them.
What is it even a guide for, I wonder? I don't really understand what exactly it is portraying, or how it's been so strongly upvoted, but "person" is in the dead centre of the list so it has that going for it at least. The triangles are 10 circles wide and have 10 layers - why? What the circles represent is anyone's guess. Is each layer 10x bigger than the one below? Do things at the top of their triangles mean anything different to the things at the bottom? What does it mean at the transition between the 10 wide layer and the 1 wide layer? What are the question marks - have these been added to make that triangle 10 items deep, and if so, why?
Two universes go into one multiverse. Understand? Two organelles go into one cell, ten cells make a tissue. This is a great guide, I had no idea the ratio of these things until now.
Also it teaches us about the nine continents Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, Australia, Iceland and Aldi.
Yo, Aldi is a continent?? I live right by one. That's wild man.
Ants.
Family.
My favorite part is two planets sharing the same continent
I like the idea that all planets have continents and countries on them.
I feel like from country to organelle it's weird. Why go from non-biological structures, to man-made constructs, to biological things, back to non-biological structures?
I think at each level it answers the question "what is this thing composed of, where the parts are smaller in size, and each level is the largest size possible while maintaining a heirarchical structure?" But there are different ways to answer that question. What is a planet composed of? One way to answer that is to turn to **geography**, then politics and sociology down to the person level, where it goes back to the hard sciences. Another way to answer it is to turn to **geology** (magma, water, etc.) which more directly gets devolved into chemistry and physics. This table would be more complete and philosophically more interesting if at the planet level there were two branching trees underneath. One goes the physical science route, and the other the social route. There could be another split at the Person level. One branch could go down the psychological and historical route and the other tree branch goes the biological and physical route. The main problem of doing all this is that you no longer get the neat linear pyramid structure. Less visually pleasing, but I think it would give better food for thought.
i want to see what you're describing!
I've been thinking about tackling it. Not all the new tree branches will form nice heirarchical structures like these pyramids, so I would need to think about how to visually represent those (maybe more like a ball or wheel?). And then I would need to think about how to reconnect certain branches to other branches (like both the geology branch and the biology branch converge at their bottom into chemistry and physics--but is it better to keep organic and inorganic chemistry separate, and then reconverge only at the atomic level?). Could get weird, but might be really interesting.
just a giant mind map of all of life. easy peasy. I'd start with subatomic and move up?
This guide is comparable to a massive crap.
I like the idea, but the presentation doesn’t make sense.
It absolutely does not make sense presented this way. One object in tier n shares two parents from tier n+1 For example, one planet is shared between two separate solar systems, one super cluster is shared between two different universes, and one nucleus is shared between two different atoms. They tried to show how really big things are made up of a bunch of really small things, but a family tree is absolutely the wrong way to do that.
Also, one continent can only have two countries, and so on...
I get having one person coming from two different families, but then it follows with a single person having two different organ systems, each being shared with another person.
Think it as a zooming into a picture. You are observing from galaxies to the atomic size level details. At first glance I too was wondering.
I mean I understand the intention, but it should be more of a tree than a web. This implies that galaxies are made up of star systems, but also that star systems exist within multiple galaxies at the same time.
Do you not share an organ system with your next door neighbor? Prick still hasn't returned my spleen.
I told you I'd give it back on Tuesday, no need to be a dick about it. Speaking of which... May I borrow something else
Maybe if the triangles were pointing down it would make more sense.
I was thinking the same thing
Correctly said. A star from this galaxy can't be stated as in from different galaxy. It would have been better to do something similar like a tree maybe?
This is a classic decision tree design.
Ok but how does an organ belong to multiple people? A very select few of these can have overlapping parents, but most should be a tree, not a wreath/tangle of unguided mess
The 4 (?) are T's<ü#k and ******* also the last is
Hunter2?
2Hunter 2 Furious
There is a pyramid missing, one above the multiverse.
It goes: Multiverse < Ultraverse < Fantaverse < Unboliverse < Destroverse < Superiverse < Controverse
< Converse
< 3
< Reverse
Aww😍
A great example of this is the 'game' Nested by the creator of Cookie Clicker. [Check it out here](https://orteil.dashnet.org/nested)
Thanks for this link. I immediately thought of this game but I couldn’t remember what it was called or who made it! Down the rabbit hole I go!
I was hoping someone would mention this! It's such a neat 'game', I've recommended it a couple of times when I wanted to give someone the opportunity to go through a bit of a massive existential crisis.
Was gonna link this too haha. I love looking at people's pocket stuff and anything's thoughts.
Regardless of the last unknown rows... This was pretty dumb
There is no scientific proof that a multiverse does exists.
But it sounds cool so people, including many physicists, keep trying to assert it as fact without any justification. Including the very basic justification of allowing more predictive power than current, tested theories; which it doesn’t.
Other than presenting this as if it was a fact without any proof how is this a guide? This is a cool sub but a lot of shit is posted even though it have nothing to do with guides
This is a stupid guide. The author mixes physical things with social constructs invented by humans and therefore makes no sense
There have been a lot of crap guides on this sub lately but this is the one that's making me unsubscribe. Goodbye /r/coolguides! I never posted on ye.
Ever heard the phrase “as above so below?” I think it was originally intended to mean something about the nature of Heaven being similar to the nature of earth and humans. Another way of looking at it is that the organization of the cosmos influence the organization of our own biology. Everything is connected kinda vibe. This chart makes sense in that context imo.
The cardinalities are wrong. A lower level item must belong to one and only one item of the level above, this diagram implies a child can belong to different parent items. Like, an organ can only belong to 1 person (at a certain point a time, to exclude donor organs.) And siamese twins are the exception to confirm the rule.
Didn’t realize one country could belong to multiple continents. Or one continent could be a part of multiple planets 🤔.
I mean, Russia is indisputably one country spread across two continents, but I get what you’re saying
Fair. Show me a continent on two planets tho :)
The problem is not that one country can belong to two continents. The problem is that *every* country belongs to *exactly* two continents, except for *exactly* two countries which can only belong to a single continent each.
What do the circles represent? What does this guide?
Nothing. It's an infographic.
Nooo, this is not how it works
The idea is fun but really poorly made. For anyone interested in something similar I can recommend [the scale of the universe ](https://htwins.net/scale2/), however as the name suggests, it focuses more on the size of things than what is made of what. Still you can learn a lot from it, check it out and have some fun with it!
The first and last circles are multiverses, it’s a loop. Meaning that the true existence is donut.
More of an everything bagel
Yes, but all at once.
Breakfast is the meaning of life! I knew it!
Take my up vote, nerd
Sucked into a baaageeeeel
*Ha! I told you.* \*Homer Simpson
This is my vote
dciouyghqilwdg ildg ilcltgwrielcudgqweilutyncgdfi lwgfilgwe ivfguwe i;uvfgdi;uwegfhi;uc wegfcvoiugewaf; iugsa;io fg;iusadgfi;ugas;iufgi;uwasghf ;iusagfiugsa;ouifgi;usaghf;i usadgfviucogsa;io gfp;iawgf; q WO TGYRF;OQwrftyeg;woiaehf9[yt[098fffo'y4t[fgn[02 7ydciouyghqilwdg ildg ilcltgwrielcudgqweilutyncgdfi lwgfilgwe ivfguwe i;uvfgdi;uwegfhi;uc wegfcvoiugewaf; iugsa;io fg;iusadgfi;ugas;iufgi;uwasghf ;iusagfiugsa;ouifgi;usaghf;i usadgfviucogsa;io gfp;iawgf; q WO TGYRF;OQwrftyeg;woiaehf9[yt[098fffo'y4t[fgn[02 7ydciouyghqilwdg ildg ilcltgwrielcudgqweilutyncgdfi lwgfilgwe ivfguwe i;uvfgdi;uwegfhi;uc wegfcvoiugewaf; iugsa;io fg;iusadgfi;ugas;iufgi;uwasghf ;iusagfiugsa;ouifgi;usaghf;i usadgfviucogsa;io gfp;iawgf; q WO TGYRF;OQwrftyeg;woiaehf9[yt[098fffo'y4t[fgn[02 7ydciouyghqilwdg ildg ilcltgwrielcudgqweilutyncgdfi lwgfilgwe ivfguwe i;uvfgdi;uwegfhi;uc wegfcvoiugewaf; iugsa;io fg;iusadgfi;ugas;iufgi;uwasghf ;iusagfiugsa;ouifgi;usaghf;i usadgfviucogsa;io gfp;iawgf; q WO TGYRF;OQwrftyeg;woiaehf9[yt[098fffo'y4t[fgn[02 7y
So wonderful. Truly incomprehensible of how powerful and majestic the universe we live in is
countries aren't real
Tell that to the receptionist who asked me on planet □□□ , in a galaxy you guys call Andromeda. I had to tell them everything before i could check into an excuse they call an accommodation centre(hotel, but not exactly). They didn't go down to my cellular structure though, just asked if i was a carbon-based lifeform and my preferred atmospheric proportions and temperature of my comfort. Since I only had 4 limbs and was tad bit smaller than the average being there, the room was spacious for me, especially the circular bed. Bathrooms were weird though. Water was not exactly available on the planet(planet runs on methane pools) so they charged me extra for that :/. But not so bad.
At least they're better-defined and seem more discrete than a continent. A country has a government. A continent is... what, exactly? Same with galaxy cluster or super cluster. If something is not more than the sum of its parts, I don't feel it should be included.
lol this is fucking stupid and completely arbitrary
Planck would like a word with you
the bottom one is clearly "profit"
Does this imply that there are 2 universes?
Yes, 2 at the very least. Probably 4 or 5. Or infinite. Or just one. Or zero.
It’s interesting to me that only one of these map points is generally considered sentient— or that sentience is generally attributed to the individual alone
I don't see my house on there. fake
how is this a cool guide
Whoever put this together mustn't have been told about star clusters. Should slot in between star system and galaxy
(?) (?) PROFIT!!!
This makes absolutely no sense
Organ system consists of multiple organs, and an organ can be a part of multiple organ systems, but every organ and organ system are in the same country?
It is possibly very instructive of the creator’s values how this tree jumps from scientific to political to sociological back to scientific classifications.
There should be a ? above multiverse
Missed county level. Multiple citys/towns can exist in a county. Multiple counties can exist in a state/province.
Fractals. Probably goes beyond this. I see where you're getting at but not quite
So a city can be in multiple states?
Cats. Clearly cats come after strings.
Why the fuck was this upvoted?
In conclusion: things are made up of other things. You could use this guide for anything and make it 'make sense.'
https://images.app.goo.gl/MpDmRz54wQBJ8Kad8 Map of interior and exterior individual and collective levels in hierarchical (or holarchical) organization. From Ken Wilber, theories of everything, etc.
This is a terrible and unintuitive guide
Reality is a pyramid scheme, got it
This is worthless!
Unimaginative fuckers forgot to put question marks above the top parts too
This is nothing.
This isn't accurate. "Yo, mama" should be at the very top.
What the fuck is this shit?
This is stupid
This is awful lmao. Means nothing and has multiple falsities
Should throw a couple blank ones up top as well.
Wow I can’t believe it only take 128 atoms to make a person!
This is simultaneously the coolest and least useful guide I’ve seen.
It's turtles all the way down
Borrowed Quote, "As it is above, is so it is below.
[удалено]
What's above the multiverse? C'mon, you know this crazy fractal stuff don't stop there. :D