To those who belive in WWs: Why?

[Morkulv]

First, I'm ignoring the therianthropy movement from this point on on this post. Otherwise, I'd have to say I know they exist, being one myself.

Next, I'll bring up an article in Scientific American on alternate universes. One suggestion it put forward was that if the universe's topography was infinite (hyper-hyperbolic, as opposed to hyperspherical, and the current evidence favors this, since we've only found about a tenth of the mass the universe would have to have in order to be a finite hypersphere), then you could only have a finite amount of ways of arranging atoms before you'd run out of all different possibilities. Along the way, anything conceivable would exist somewhere, and we've all certainly conceived of werewolves.

To push the case, we've even conceived of worlds with werewolves, where everyone thought there weren't any.

But, for the record, I don't believe they're real. (So, I hope you don't feel I'm barging into this topic, since it's targetted at believers.) I'm posting here to suggest ways I could be wrong.

I agree that the scientific model does a poor job dealing with the paranormal, resorting to dismissing most of it. (Still, the power of suggestion when you want to believe can be strong. I could have sworn when I was a kid that I saw footprints in the chimney around Christmas, and heard jingling in the wind on Christmas Eve. Some things CAN be attributed to the mind's confabulation. But, not ALL of it.)

The Beast of Bray Road is just one of many unexplained sightings that mainstream science ignores today, but could some day revel when a new species is discovered. (I'm convinced the Yeti is an undiscovered primate, much like the "ape men" that was once identified as the gorilla.)

A shapeshifting werewolf could happen simply by beating the odds against it--things improbable DO happen.

Or, there's my old propositions: alien genetic engineering experiments, transdimensional astral viruses, or hacks in The Matrix.

So, while I don't believe they're literally real, I'm open to being proven wrong. To quote Carl Sagan, however, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (By complete coincidence, I've got a recording of Cosmos I'll be watching in an hour or so. What are the odds?)

Why can't I read your post completely?

[white]

@ Ralith I am also reading a good book about one persons view of therianthropy. I am not done with it yet so it could still suck, but it is good so far. it's in pdf format http://www.snowspine.com/therian/theria ... f-link.pdf as I said I havent finnished it though.

Wow. That's really insightful; it (so far) truly fits my beliefs, which is saying something. Thanks.

@Morkulv: You can't read his post completely? How exactly do you mean that?

[PariahPoet]

I believe in therian weres, not people who can actually shapeshift. I believe it because I am a werecat. ;)

[Renorei]

I don't believe in werewolves. But I would absolutely love to be proven wrong.

[Morkulv]

I think its too easy to say that something doesn't exist, only because you haven't seen it.

[Renorei]

I think its too easy to say that something doesn't exist, only because you haven't seen it.

I agree with you, to an extent. However, I've never seen God or angels or demons, and yet I still believe in them.

I think that if werewolves did exist, they would be able to TF through supernatural forces, not scientific ones.

[Scott Gardener]

Morkulv:

Why can't I read your post completely?

Ell... OK, I guess I need to explain myself better.

I'll bring up an article in Scientific American on alternate universes.

They had a great article about alternate universes. It first started with the premise that the universe is infinite. (Ignore that hypersphere and hyper-hyperbola stuff, unless you're interested in the explanation WHY they think the universe is infinite.) If you've got infinity in all directions, but only a fixed number of known atoms, you can only arrange all those atoms so many ways before you run out of different arrangements and have to repeat patterns. Given a large enough amount of space, things that are individually improbable become more and more likely. The odds of werewolves evolving on Earth is extremely small. But the odds of werewolves evolving on at least one of a trillion, trillion, trillion Earths is a little better. Therefore, while werewolves probably don't exist here, they probably do exist somewhere.

Or, there's my old propositions: alien genetic engineering experiments, transdimensional astral viruses, or hacks in The Matrix.

These are just ways that I think werewolves could exist. Alien genetic engineering is self-explanatory. (That's a fun sentence to quote out-of-context!) Transdimensional astral viruses, eh, not so self-explanatory.

By "transdimensional," I mean more than three spatial dimensions plus time as a fourth. It allows for things like "hyperspace" or "subspace" suggested by our favorite sci-fi shows. In my own stories, I work with the idea of the astral plane being such an extra dimension. I've built up my own hypothetical, imaginary technology around it. One of the things to come out of astral physics is a special kind of werewolf "virus." It's not a virus in the sense of being DNA, any more than a computer virus is. Rather, it works on a level that today's knowledge and understanding could best describe as metaphysical.

Hacking The Matrix is a reference to the Matrix movies and their premise that reality as we know it is only a grandiose simulation. Werewolves could be made possible simply by figuring out the "cheat codes."

[Vilkacis]

Next, I'll bring up an article in Scientific American on alternate universes. One suggestion it put forward was that if the universe's topography was infinite (hyper-hyperbolic, as opposed to hyperspherical, and the current evidence favors this, since we've only found about a tenth of the mass the universe would have to have in order to be a finite hypersphere), then you could only have a finite amount of ways of arranging atoms before you'd run out of all different possibilities. Along the way, anything conceivable would exist somewhere, and we've all certainly conceived of werewolves.

I'll bring up an article in Scientific American on alternate universes.

They had a great article about alternate universes. It first started with the premise that the universe is infinite. (Ignore that hypersphere and hyper-hyperbola stuff, unless you're interested in the explanation WHY they think the universe is infinite.) If you've got infinity in all directions, but only a fixed number of known atoms, you can only arrange all those atoms so many ways before you run out of different arrangements and have to repeat patterns. Given a large enough amount of space, things that are individually improbable become more and more likely. The odds of werewolves evolving on Earth is extremely small. But the odds of werewolves evolving on at least one of a trillion, trillion, trillion Earths is a little better. Therefore, while werewolves probably don't exist here, they probably do exist somewhere.

There are a couple issues I have with that explanation. I won't go into much detail for two reasons: I haven't read the article in question, and my response is kind of off-topic...

The only reason I continue is because this kind of thing interests me to no end.

The first thing: the assumption that the state space includes all possible arrangements of atoms. Wouldn't it only consist of those states that are reachable via the 'rules' (physical laws, etc.)?

That is a huge point, potentially destroying the entire model. In the interest of simplicity, though, I'm willing to concede the issue.

The second thing: "Along the way, anything conceivable would exist somewhere, and we've all certainly conceived of werewolves." I'm thinking that it should be "Along the way, anything possible would exist..." I'm pretty sure that we can conceive of things that are not possible within the constraints of the physical world, right? The question then becomes whether or not it is physically possible to shapeshift as we imagine it (no matter how you arrange the atoms), and we're right back where we started.

Does that make sense?


Anyway, by that model I think I could agree that non-shifting werewolf-like creatures could exist in a number of those supposed universes, at least.

-- Vilkacis

[Lupin]

The only reason I continue is because this kind of thing interests me to no end.

The first thing: the assumption that the state space includes all possible arrangements of atoms. Wouldn't it only consist of those states that are reachable via the 'rules' (physical laws, etc.)?

That is a huge point, potentially destroying the entire model. In the interest of simplicity, though, I'm willing to concede the issue.

Well they're not really sure that 'our' rules hold true for the entire universe. Evidently the big bang produced what is known as a false vacuum. The decay of this vacuum produced many 'bubbles', one of which is our visible universe. So if different kinds of bubbles are possible, then yes, it would be infininte.

[Short Tail]

I'll bring up an article in Scientific American on alternate universes.

They had a great article about alternate universes. It first started with the premise that the universe is infinite. (Ignore that hypersphere and hyper-hyperbola stuff, unless you're interested in the explanation WHY they think the universe is infinite.) If you've got infinity in all directions, but only a fixed number of known atoms, you can only arrange all those atoms so many ways before you run out of different arrangements and have to repeat patterns. Given a large enough amount of space, things that are individually improbable become more and more likely. The odds of werewolves evolving on Earth is extremely small. But the odds of werewolves evolving on at least one of a trillion, trillion, trillion Earths is a little better. Therefore, while werewolves probably don't exist here, they probably do exist somewhere.

wow, this reminds me of the last volume of the Hichhikers Guide to the Galaxy series, Mostly Harmless. It explaind it as well but I can't remember the specifics. only thing is it is a work of fiction

[Set]

Ah, I see. They must be rather uncommon; I'm sure the majority of us would love to see something of the sort.

*quietly envies Reilune*

Why envy me? My life is actually rather dull, and coming across these things is no more exciting to me than seeing one of the hundreds of cottontails that live around here.

Oh...and you might have. Alot of people catch glimpses of this sort of thing but normally dismiss it as shadows, imagination, ect. Usually it's too brief to make out any detail so they just look like something moving that you see out of the corner of your eye. Not everything will be an astral creature of course, but some might be. What'll really drive you bonkers is the fact that you'll never really know. ("Would you still have broken the vase if I hadn't said anything?")

I was thinking about the reason they don't show up on camera and thought it might be good to explain it a bit. I'll try to make it as easy to understand as possible. There are several planes of existance. (If you prefer to be scientific I suppose you could call them dimensions.) We live in the physical. The one closest to the physical is the etheric. This is where ghosts reside. The etheric plane is somewhere between solid and thought-like. Things there can occupy the same 3-dimensional space. Because it's so close to our own we can take pictures of the entities that reside there, such as ghosts.

The next one is the astral which is very thought/dream-like. Mythical creatures live in the astral. It's of a different...I guess I could say frequency...than the etheric. Now you can't take pictures of your thoughts, which is basically the same reason I can't take pictures of the griffin and kitsune. You can still (with enough practice) affect things with your thoughts however. It's kind of the same with astral creatures.

[white]

I think that if werewolves did exist, they would be able to TF through supernatural forces, not scientific ones.

The difference being? There's really no such thing as a 'scientific force'; there's just what we understand, and what we don't. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it eventually became clear that, whether or not it actually exists, things like short-timeframe transformation are possible. Many of my longer posts have been relating to my predictions of us living to see something of the sort, and paying some insane amount to be given at least a new body, and at most the actual shifting ability.

@Reilune: Your life may be dull, but you can change that. I'm envying you because you appear to be having direct contact with what most refer to as the supernatural, and I'd just LOVE to get my analytical mind something like that to work with.

@Everyone discussing the nature of the universe: I think it's safe to say that it'll be a very long time before we're very sure about anything on a large scale; there's not THAT much evidence of any current theories.

[Renorei]

I think that if werewolves did exist, they would be able to TF through supernatural forces, not scientific ones.

The difference being? There's really no such thing as a 'scientific force'; there's just what we understand, and what we don't. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it eventually became clear that, whether or not it actually exists, things like short-timeframe transformation are possible.

Perhaps I should clarify (or try to). Rather than have it occur through a virus, I'd rather it be something supernatural that we can't explain so easily. I'd like for the werewolves to either be supernatural creatures themselves, or be aided by them. Perhaps that makes more sense? There are, IMO, some things that can't be explained, such as angels, demons, etc. I think werewolves would be in the same general category as those guys.

[Lupin]

@Everyone discussing the nature of the universe: I think it's safe to say that it'll be a very long time before we're very sure about anything on a large scale; there's not THAT much evidence of any current theories.

The thing about the bubbles is that we may *never* know if that's correct or not, since the hypothesis predicts that the bubbles themeselves are expanding faster than the speed of light.

[white]

Of course, we may eventually find a way around that barrier. Wormholes, anyone?

@Excelsia: Again, I find fault with your adjectives. First: As far as I can tell, there's no particular reason for angels and/or demons to exist either, so they don't exactly make a wonderful comparison. However, I agree in what I think you mean, being that it's perfectly possible and abides by all the basic physical rules, but we simply don't know these basic rules accurately at all, and have no idea how most of the world works.

[Redfeather the Defender]

There maybe undescovered creatures, evolved wolves/dogs, demented phycos, or people with bad eye sight but I'll believe it when I see it.
anyone got proof?

[Xodiac]

I think its too easy to say that something doesn't exist, only because you haven't seen it.

How about because the laws of biology say it's very unlikely and those of thermodynamics say it's pretty much impossible? And, of course, we haven't seen any.

That so many cultures came up with "man turns into animal" means little. It is a very basic, very simple idea. It's not hard to conceive of it. If every culture had people turn into wolves, that might be better proof, but people always seem to turn into the local top predator. Coyotes in the southwest, tigers in India, sharks in Hawaii, wolves in Europe. This is evidence that many local cultures thought of it independantly. Like I said, it wouldn't be hard.

The notion that we don't know all there is to know is good. It's healthy, because it helps prevent arrogance. Nevertheless, we do know enough in some areas to know that some things can't be. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy stories about such things. I like stories about werewolves, and transformations in general. I also like fantasy stories involving dragons (also impossible beasts, at least so long as they fly), science fiction stories involving FTL travel (most depictions of which go against known physics), and other such stories.

[Set]

I'm envying you because you appear to be having direct contact with what most refer to as the supernatural, and I'd just LOVE to get my analytical mind something like that to work with.

Then hunt ghosts. They're the easiest to see, and also the most common of supernatural beings. My advice would be to bring a camera and pay attention to where all the cold spots are.

[Akela]

Hunting Ghosts? Sounds like a hobby for someone with way to much time on their hands.

As for werewolves that could exist for an alternate universe, I'm guessing there's about a negative 5% chance. Perhaps something like an anthro, but not something that can change like a werewolf.

No quoting the librarian for he shall smite ye.

Surely not the Librarian, he of the long build time. Besides the Chaplain is much better.

[white]

How about because the laws of biology say it's very unlikely and those of thermodynamics say it's pretty much impossible? And, of course, we haven't seen any.

Unlikely, perhaps. Impossible? No. The laws of thermodynamics, or ANY of our so-called laws of physics or of anything are misnamed; a law is simply a theory that appears to, for the most part, fit the majority of observed data that's accepted by the scientific community. They're not set in stone in the slightest, nor are they all-encompassing. Are you aware, for example, that at the moment many widely accepted "laws" contradict eachother? Besides, there are plenty of ways that transformation could work without violating any "laws"; it just takes some knowledge of physics and a bit of imagination. As to not having seen any; that means absolutely nothing. A werewolf looks perfectly human if he/she wants, for one thing, and if someone DID discover them, they'd be laughed off, snatched by a government, or both. Conspiracy theories aside, governments and the like are quite interested in maintaining the status quo, and something like knowledge of werewolves goes directly against that.

That so many cultures came up with "man turns into animal" means little. It is a very basic, very simple idea. It's not hard to conceive of it. If every culture had people turn into wolves, that might be better proof, but people always seem to turn into the local top predator. Coyotes in the southwest, tigers in India, sharks in Hawaii, wolves in Europe. This is evidence that many local cultures thought of it independantly. Like I said, it wouldn't be hard.

A valid point. However, wolf-related lore is quite a bit more widespread than you indicate.

The notion that we don't know all there is to know is good. It's healthy, because it helps prevent arrogance. Nevertheless, we do know enough in some areas to know that some things can't be.

This, I simply can't agree with. We know much, much less than most people realize; most certainly not enough to just pass things off as impossible like that. Look back at history; before the wright brothers, heavier than air flight was impossible. Talk to anyone a few hundred years ago about nuclear reactors and you're obviously just some psycho. The same can be said about any technology or advanced discovery at all; people won't believe it if they don't have one in their living room or down the street. I'm sure there are people out there who don't believe in some technologies that DO exist; I know that I have a hard enough time convincing many people about quantum physics.

Heh. And I don't believe in werewolves. Be glad I got to you first

[Lupin]

Of course, we may eventually find a way around that barrier. Wormholes, anyone?

That still might not be the best idea if the place we're tunneling to doesn't observe the same 'rules' we do. One of the papers I read drew a parallel to bubbles in a pot of boling water.

They're not set in stone in the slightest, nor are they all-encompassing. Are you aware, for example, that at the moment many widely accepted "laws" contradict eachother?

They only start to contradict each other when you start taking them out of the context they describe, like using Newtonian physics on an object moving at realivisic speeds, using quantum mechanics to describe macroscopic objects, or applying relativity to things like a singularity.

[white]

Of course, we may eventually find a way around that barrier. Wormholes, anyone?

That still might not be the best idea if the place we're tunneling to doesn't observe the same 'rules' we do. One of the papers I read drew a parallel to bubbles in a pot of boling water.

Yay for unmanned probes! Why risk our lives when we can simply send in a data collector?

They're not set in stone in the slightest, nor are they all-encompassing. Are you aware, for example, that at the moment many widely accepted "laws" contradict eachother?

They only start to contradict each other when you start taking them out of the context they describe, like using Newtonian physics on an object moving at realivisic speeds, using quantum mechanics to describe macroscopic objects, or applying relativity to things like a singularity.

True; however, my point holds. Our "laws" are neither perfect nor all-encompassing, and there's a pretty good chance that many of them are quite simply wrong.

[Lupin]

Yay for unmanned probes! Why risk our lives when we can simply send in a data collector?

That's not the problem. Their vacuum state might be lower than ours, and by introducing the two to each other it might cause a catastropic change in ours.

True; however, my point holds. Our "laws" are neither perfect nor all-encompassing, and there's a pretty good chance that many of them are quite simply wrong.

Personally I doubt they're outright wrong, more likely they're incomplete.

[white]

And I agree; it's just best to keep in mind that it's not necessarily the case.

As to the wormhole problem: Don't we get spontaneous wormholes all over the place already? Are they too short-lived to cause problems?

[Lupin]

Well, the Uncertianty Principle says it's possible. I'm not sure that we've ever observed it happening, though.