throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works to

Casual Conversation @lemm.eeEnglish · 4 days ago

Do you think of reality in terms of different "timelines"?

34

Do you think of reality in terms of different "timelines"?

throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works to

Casual Conversation @lemm.eeEnglish · 4 days ago

I’m imagining like a lot of different timelines. I’m jealous of the versions of me in the better timelines, and simultaneously afraid of those darker timelines, ones even darker than this timeline.

Do y’all think of the world as different “timelines”?

Perhaps I’m too obsessed with time-travel/multiverse-theory?

Btw I read Recursion lately (time trsvel story). And I watched Dark Matter TV Series (parallel universe story). Both stories by the same author.

Every time these concepts appear in the media, my “obsession” just goes even further.

I don’t like this current “depression” timeline. Very shitty.

Chat

Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
link
fedilink
English
arrow-up
1·
3 days ago
I mean referring to the parallel universe concept. Unless everyone here believes in free will, the thinking goes universes that start out the same are going to play out the same, requiring any differences to be caused by external interference.

Casual Conversation @lemm.ee

casualconversation@lemm.ee

You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !casualconversation@lemm.ee

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you’ll make some friends in the process.

RULES (updated 01/22/25)

Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won’t be punished for trying.
Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There’s a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it’s vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a “controversial” message for it to be allowed.
Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a “spammy” message must be applicable to four purple answers before it’s allowed.
Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it “would be a copyright violation if the info was art” as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar’s Number) or less, it’s considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

Visibility: Public

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

298 users / day
954 users / week
2.54K users / month
8.38K users / 6 months
14 local subscribers
3.35K subscribers
1.07K Posts
25.1K Comments
Modlog