Random...

I'm talking in theory, now quit being a bitch! Given that none of this is actually even possible, all you've done is secure your status as a grade-a douche.

Regardless, I agree with the 'near-cloning status' conjecture that someone suggested. I believe the 'near-cloning status' would vary a large amount based upon how similar that person was to you (ie: how few changes had been made in the universe in comparision to yours).

 

Maybe the pot shoud look in the mirror before calling the kettle black. People bitching about other people (allegedly) bitching is a flavor of irony that will never cease to amaze me.....wait...no....it's definitely ceased by now.

Look, DarkFool, you wanted a discussion, you got one. If you're going to be such a stiff ass that you act all sensitive and offended at other people's opinions or how they word them, maybe you should ask yourself if, deep down, this really something worth bringing up in the first place. I think it's an incredibly interesting topic, but if my answers give you nightmares, shut me up by backing up your argument with some solid discussion, not by whining like a brat.

Now let me elaborate about that little needle of a sentence you decided to hand pick out the haystack of an effort I wanted to put forth into the discussion: First, Vyenna corrected me (as she was right to do) that this was more of a hypothesis than a theory despite my noticing more than a few times in your referenced link that the MWI is regarded as a theory. She even backed it up with a quote that stated:

Hypothesis or theory...either way, both are meant to observe, propose, and test observations and ideas in a concise, scientific manner, and that's just what I did. You provided the theory, I provided the facts (read: scientific laws) that I felt justified my opinion on the subject. If you don't like it or agree with it, come back with something better of your own that expresses your side of the discussion. Don't answer what you percieve to be childish ignorance/arrogance with even more childish ignorance/arrogance. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you. You should be mature enough to know already how to carry on an adequate argument with facts, opinions, and rebutals.

Now, I'd hate to see this thread spiral out of control because, as I stated before, I find this topic really interesting and am trying my best to express my views in as detailed a manner as possible. And I'm curious to see what other people's opinions are and if they can persuade me to their side in a way that a good debate should do.

 

Hell, I was just trying to create some amusing banter based upon the intricates of having sex with yourself. Not examine the physics and possibilities of Multiple Universe Theories. I suppose that before I state my viewpoint, I provide some background for it, as that's necessary when dealing with multiple universe discussions. The assumption is that the universe your travelling to is absolutely identical up to the point of your birth. In reality, you were born male,* and in the other you were born female. Life choices after this aren't terribly important (provided that both you and your 'other' are both still alive). The point is that you travel into this near-identical universe, and have sex with yourself. Suddenly, we've nearly identical genetics being combined sexually. I believe there're two distinct possibilities for the resulting child: first, is that it would be nearly identical to you, and would be like a third, smaller version, though it in turn would've it's own mind. A few differences might occur, but, it should resemble either you or your parents, as those're the only possible gene combinations that it can pull from (it would get the parents trait if both parties provide a recessive hair gene that you got from your dad, or something like that). My other distinct possibility that I see happening is it being horrendous because, if you examine the genetic structure, it's getting 13 traits from dad, and 13 from mom, but both sets of 13 are nearly identical. Meaning that there's a good chance that any uber-rare recessive diseases that may run in the family but never be present suddenly take surface.

Oh, and I bitched because your first post was "Rar! this isn't possible, so I'm going to be a bitch! Rar!"

 

ANYWAYS....

For DarkFool's original question, the term 'in-bred' only came up as a negative connotation to when members of the same biological family produce offspring, and their offspring turned out to be quite less than normal. Take a look at the Egyptian's; they'd marry each other even if they were fraternal twins to keep the 'pure blood' going.

So the kid would only be 'in-bred' if the recessive genes were highly dangerous. But if you produce a 'better' you, well, all's well that ends well.

And then that raises the question; where will the kid live?

And I still maintain: Eewww....

 

I could say something, DE, but I won't

 

Are you making empty accusations because you don't like my answers or because you're actually trying to scuttle your own thread into a mud slinging contest? I'd ask you to seriously explain where or how you interpreted that from any of my posts, but I'd much rather get back on topic.

Now, I'll try to keep this as "G-rated" as possible because God for-fucking-bid someone on the internet gets offended at something someone else does or says.

We're saying that hypothetically we can travel between alternate universes and meet any potential alternate versions of ourselves. First off, as DarkFool referenced in his link, this concept is rooted in heavy principles of quantum physics. How much more scientific can you get? That is why I'm approaching this from my own scientific points of view. If you think I'm being too serious with this, then by all means, don't read any further into my post. But if you're someone who likes to keep an open mind, then let me know what you think of this opinion.

I don't believe (and that is my OPINION) that you can find an alternate version of yourself of the opposite sex in an alternate universe because it is not biologically possible for a man and a woman to be viewed as genetically equal, or I guess "alternately equal" in this case. But that aside, if a situation such as that were to play out, an the male you mated with the alternate female you, it would not be uncommon to see a pretty good bit of diversity in genotype or phenotyp. Genotype is the collection of genetic characteristics you express, and phenotype is the physical result of the genotype. So someone with a genotype that codes for black hair would express exactly that, black hair, as their phenotype. The same is true for other phenotypic traits such as eye color, a widow's peak, broad or narrow nose, prominant chin, heart related diseases, cycle-cell disease, etc. The list goes on. Now, as we know, these phenotypes are the results of different variations of the same gene: Dominant, recessive, and heterozygous. These come from the fact that you get one copy of each gene, called an Allele, from each parent that comes from their sex cells, the Gametes. Gametes only have one copy of each chromosome, and thus only one allele of each gene, so that when the sperm gamete fuzes with the egg gamete, the resulting cell has our common 46 chromosomes. Now when a gamete with a chromosome that expresses a dominant allele pairs with another gamete with a chromosome that expresses a dominant allele for the same gene, that gene is said to be dominant and thus expresses a dominant phenotype. When a dominant allele is randomly paired with a recessive allele, that gene is heterozygous, BUT will still express a dominant phenotype. And when a recessive allele is paired with a recessive allele, that gene is recessive and expresses a recessive phenotype. Remember that all these pairings of gametes, and thus chromosomes, and thus alleles of genes is all at random. So even though you mate with the alternate you, your offspring can still look pretty different than the two of you. If the gene that is heterozygous for black hair still expresses black hair as it's phenotype, that one recessive allele from that gene in your male version's gamete could possibly pair up the other recessive allele of that gene from the alternate female version's gamete and there you have a recessive gene for hair color and an offspring with Blonde, Red, Brunette, etc...hair. Now extrapolate this across entire possible genome of the offspring and you might be surprized how different a child from the two of you actually looks.

The major differences would only appear in small percentages though. That is because Dominant and Heterozygous genes hold phenotypic expression over recessive genes. So you only really have a 1/4 chance that the recessive phenotype will be randomly expressed genotypically, if the gene in question is Heterozygous.

 

You were saving that one for a rainy day, weren't you?

 

I guess I probaly should bother about reading shit like this, but I just can't get my spirit into it, I rather just slide through it and then sit down and play some games...

But I admire you guys for acutally doing this

 

The whole time I've been posting in this thread, I'm reminded of the Jet Li movie The One where he jumps to other universes and kills alternate him's to make himself superhuman. That was a good movie with a good moral, which is: Don't try to kill yourself, because yourself may try to kill you back.

 

There's a problem, there;
The "women" in question are biologically men. They simply have vaginas in place of penises, but maintain the testes inside their bodies. First time I heard about this was on ER. A young girl came in complaining of a persistent, dull pain in her abdomen after a car crash. Fearing internal bleeding, the surgeons opened her up and checked around. The only things they found were two surprisingly large lymph nodes that were pretty rubbery. After doing a biopsy on the offending nodes, it was found that they were balls. Tiny, internally located balls.

Now as far as an alternate you being a woman, I submit this information:
An alternate you can be any combination of genetic traits from your parents, meaning that they could have the same damn genetic makeup, but look entirely different. Your alternate you doesn't have to look like you! Your alternate parents don't have to look like your parents, either. They just need the same genes. Now, I'm thinking there could be a case in which a woman from your father's family and a man from your mother's family married and had a kid who looks just like you, but that doesn't mean the man and woman are transgender carbon copies of your parents.
In short, I agree with Grimm, but think the possible effects of so many parallels are utterly confusing.

Now, what COULD happen is this;
Say you're a hermaphrodite. If you are, that's fine, I won't tell anyone or judge you on anything other than your merit as a person. Now, if you're a hermaphrodite, there could be another you in some other universe you could boink. And you could have kids. That is, if true hermaphroditic humans existed. When a human is described as a hermaphrodite, they tend to have both sets of external organs, but only one set works, meaning the extra vag or wang is supernumerary and only serves the purpose of tickling the fancy of every single anime porn and hentai manga artist in japan.

 

This is what I referred to when calling you a whiny bitch, you whiny bitch.

Alright, since you keep failing to understand my point, I've made a damn diagram. Please view it, and I'll explain below it.


See the box 'history' it implies that, until your birth, history was identical. See, since each decision spawns it's own universe, the implication here is that you're finding a universe that's identical to your present one except for your gender. This is what you've failed to awknowledge everytime you rebuttle. Hell, you'ren't really rebuttling. You're just saying "alternate universe or no, that'sn't you because it's female."

 

He is bringing up the trouser theory. You should have used a pair of trouser, since that diagram dosn't explain it as good as a pair of pants does.

 

I actually have a theory about alternate realities and time travel that I came up with during a very very very boring maths lesson. Eventually I found that I could not complete it because of all the possibilities that could happen. To this day I stick with John Adams' maxim: Everything is possible; it's just a question of whether it's probable.

But can anyone tell us what 'in-bred' means? Because if not for DarkFool's interest, it's in my interest to know.

 

EDIT

Sorry, my post was out of context. I should have read the thread more carefully.

Feel free to remove this post.

/EDIT

 

DarkFool: I want so badly to believe that you're not as ignorant as you are so effectively portraying yourself to be right now because you've been pretty cool with me up until this thread. Everysingle post I've made up to this point (save one in which I poked fun at Xz's comment, to which he simply responded cool, collected manner), has gone into great detail to present my opinion and at the same time rebut yours. Why the fuck would I bother to do that if I shared the same opinion as you? Come to think of it, why would you even bother to start a thread asking for opinions that you're just going to bash for not being the same as yours? That's basically all you've done so far after starting the whole thing. You came in, read what I had to say, for some reason thought I was talking down to you, and instead of contributing any more to the discussion, took it upon yourself to pick one little sentence out my posts and call me a whiny bitch. After doing that, why would you even entertain the thought that anybody in on this argument would give anything you have to say an ounce of integrity? Serisously, grow up. This isn't some kindergarten schoolyard name calling contest.

Now since you've jumped to conclusions like an ignorant nutsack in every post so far and obviously DID NOT read any of my views on the subject (if you did, you would actually have something else to comment on instead of just my alleged "bitchiness"), I'm going to quote myself since I don't feel like typing it all over again if it's possible you're not even going to read it. By doing this, I'm not acting like a whiny bitch, I'm simply ::WARNING:: giving an opinion that does NOT agree with yours and explaining why I feel that way. God, I can't believe I even have to explain this to you.

First let me just get this out of the way since someone's obviously having trouble understanding it. This is an open discussion. That means I'm not restricted to one side of it. I can express that I agree with it (and why). I can express that I disagree with it (and why). But who the fuck says that I can't express whether the topic has any grounds to exist logically as well? With that out of the way....

This is the part I'm rebutting, and I'm hoping you've made it this far to see what I've actually said before (and that you failed to acknowledge).

That's from the link you posted.

My response:

EDIT: Now let me add this. Taking all possibilities into consideration, isn't there also an alternate universe in which you don't even exist?? I tie that into my claim that once whatever alternate parents give birth to a child of the sex opposite of your own, that is a result in a universe that you DO NOT exist in because of the genetic difference between males and females. So really, you're not a female, you simply don't exist. And you can never exist alternately as a female because of this reasoning.

There. That's my side of the argument that attempts to rebut your diagram. If you don't like, tough shit. Come back with something better to persuade or disprove me. But don't act as callous as responding with "You whiny bitch!! You don't even listen to what I say arrghhg!!!! Blah Blah Blah!"