Futurama-in-Simpsons Paradox Solved !

[on:]

It occured to me in a fevered flash of brilliance while I was on the toilet just now!

All the episodes of the Simpsons featuring futurama characters were actually produced in the futurama universe by the "what-if" machine, after being asked the following questions -

"what would a simpsons episode be like if we made cameos as a popular television show and merchandisable product"

(bender asked the question)

it's crazy... so crazy it must be true!

[Reply #1 on:]

I don't see why it's so difficult to envisage two alternate universes where in each the other is entirely fictional.

[Reply #2 on:]

Interesting theory, Dumbuket...

[Reply #3 on:]

No Futurama is a documentary about Fry's life. but then Matt Groening discoverd a way to travel back in time and Make it a cartoon show in our time and slip in refrences in the simpsons.

[Reply #4 on:]

It is possible, but I think Digital Dragon has got it on the spot.

[Reply #5 on:]

Digital dragon's conclusion is a stupid. I base my criticism on his known use of dirty words.

Also, if he's correct, then he's essentially borrowing from the popular "many worlds" theory. In admitting to the possibility of parallel universes, he opens up the possibility that both futurama, and the simpsons could in fact be actual, existing universes parallel to our own. Even more disturbing is the fact that my own life could, in fact, be a fictional drama in either of those universes, which allows for the horrifying possibility that my life could have been cancelled by Fox.

[Reply #6 on:]

Nowhere did he say that he thought they were real paralell universes. And, how can your life be canceled?

[Reply #7 on:]

 

Digital dragon's conclusion is a stupid. I base my criticism on his known use of dirty words.

You base it on my known use of...dirty words.

What the hell are you smoking?

[Reply #8 on:]

What am I smoking, you ask? Why, decorative plastic moss, wrapped in peppery pita rolls. Why do you ask?

Clearly you have no sense of humor, or genitals besides!

And Tom123, I only postulate that Fox would cancel my life, or rather, a show about my life, because it is an obvious correlary to the "parallel universes that contain each other as fictional TV shows" theory, and necessary to preserve mathematical symmetry. Also, it was a joke, lunkhead.

[Reply #9 on:]

Digital Dragon is right, dumbucket.

[Reply #10 on:]

personaly i think dumbucket is right, because it is that hard for me to think that the simpsons and futurama are two alternate universes where in each the other is entirely fictional, as digital dragon said they were. but then again, user_names_suck might be on to something even more plausible, and by plausible i mean plausible only to futurama fans.

[Reply #11 on:]

By plosible I think you mean plausible.

When do Futurama characters appear in The Simpsons anyway? I know there is one where Bender appears, but he isn't identical to the real thing, and the one where Fry appears is in a couch gag, so why can't they exist in the same universe?

[Reply #12 on:]

that's what i said, plausible.

and they appear many times, like in the latest, Fraudcast News. in the beggining, a boy jumps off a cliff yelling "why did they have to cancel futurama." and another, i can't remember the title, matt groening was there signing autographs for his hit show, futurama, there were bender dolls and everything

[Reply #13 on:]

 

Originally posted by gottalovebender:
that's what i said, plausible.

 

Originally posted by the PEEL god:
[This message has been edited by gottalovebender (edited 06-06-2004).]

Really...? 

In the case of someone jumping off the building, Digital Dragon's explanation makes the most sense.

[Reply #14 on:]

What's weird is that Matt Groening showed up as the creator of Futurama on The Simpsons, but The Simpsons is a show in Futurama.  Think about that.

[Reply #15 on:]

He's like some crazy interdimensional nexus in human form. Or possibly not.

[Reply #16 on:]

This is just like The Farnsworth Parabox:
Universe A is inside Universe 1 which is inside Universe A which inside Universe 1...
The Simpsons is a show in Futurama which is a show in The Simpsons which is a show in Futurama...
I don't think there is a reasonable explanation.
 

Originally posted by Dumbuket:
All the episodes of the Simpsons featuring futurama characters were actually produced in the futurama universe by the "what-if" machine, after being asked the following questions -

"what would a simpsons episode be like if we made cameos as a popular television show and merchandisable product"

Does this mean that our whole world is just a What If question?

 

Originally posted by *author*:
I don't see why it's so difficult to envisage two alternate universes where in each the other is entirely fictional.

So, in the Futurama universe, someone creates a fictional universe in which the 'real' unervise is fictional, in which the fictional unervise is fictional, in which the 'real' unervise is fictional..., and the same for The Simpsons? It seems just as complicated.

[Reply #17 on:]

 

Also, if he's correct, then he's essentially borrowing from the popular "many worlds" theory. In admitting to the possibility of parallel universes, he opens up the possibility that both futurama, and the simpsons could in fact be actual, existing universes parallel to our own. Even more disturbing is the fact that my own life could, in fact, be a fictional drama in either of those universes, which allows for the horrifying possibility that my life could have been cancelled by Fox.

Thanks for the laugh 

[Reply #18 on:]

 

Originally posted by Dumbuket:
Digital dragon's conclusion is a stupid. I base my criticism on his known use of dirty words.

Also, if he's correct, then he's essentially borrowing from the popular "many worlds" theory. In admitting to the possibility of parallel universes, he opens up the possibility that both futurama, and the simpsons could in fact be actual, existing universes parallel to our own. Even more disturbing is the fact that my own life could, in fact, be a fictional drama in either of those universes, which allows for the horrifying possibility that my life could have been cancelled by Fox.

i very much doubt your life means anything to anyone.    

[Reply #19 on:]

I think what it actually is is that Groening did want to maintain the purity of futurama but then it got cancelled so gave up.

[Reply #20 on:]

I have an idea. If there are two worlds, one show can be fictional to the other, or they can both be fictional. They cannot both be true. So, the Simpsons is fictional, but in it there is a TV show called Futurama. Futurama is real, and it has the TV show Simpsons in it, and since the Simpsons is ficitonal, then if it has a creator of a show that is real, it really isn't breaking any laws by saying that something real is fictional, since it itself is fictional.

I hope that made a little sense.

[Reply #21 on:]

*Uuh*

You're all makin' my head hurt.   
This is worse than that temporal-paradox thread...   

Edited 'cuz I can't flamin' spell!

[Reply #22 on:]

Prepare yourselves for my attempt at an explanation!

Futurama is real. In our world, in the year 3000, FRy, Leela, Bender, and all the rest wil be real people. Fry is an actual person who actually froze himself in 1999. in watching the show, we are watching what will happen in the future. The Simpsons, however, is an alternate reality, in which humans actualy are yellow. In that universe, Futurama is also the true future.

[Reply #23 on:]

Dumbuket's theory could be a corollary to that one.

What worries me in treating the Simpsons as an alternate reality is that if you read Kripke, proper names are considered rigid designators across all possible worlds.  Which means the phrase "the Simpsons" has the same referent in any possible world.  So if we suppose the existence of a possible world in which the Simpsons exist in all possible worlds, then by definition the Simpsons do exist in all possible worlds, therefore they exist in this one.  So where the hell are they?

[Reply #24 on:]

[Reply #25 on:]

Get them!!! Break their legs!!!

[Reply #26 on:]

 

Originally posted by canned eggs:
Dumbuket's theory could be a corollary to that one.

What worries me in treating the Simpsons as an alternate reality is that if you read Kripke, proper names are considered rigid designators across all possible worlds.  Which means the phrase "the Simpsons" has the same referent in any possible world.  So if we suppose the existence of a possible world in which the Simpsons exist in all possible worlds, then by definition the Simpsons do exist in all possible worlds, therefore they exist in this one.  So where the hell are they?

That's more confusing than Zeep's, Dumbuket's, and my theories combined into a massive ball of confusion.

[Reply #27 on:]

Maybe they're both cartoons, and this world is real?

Naah. Forget that.

[Reply #28 on:]

Well, obviously they're all real.  I mean, relative to the construct.  For example, you could say that in the Simpsons universe, Homer is "real" and Scratchy is "not real."  You're not using the term "real" strictly speaking; you're adopting an error theory, by which if we accept the initial error that the Simpsons universe is the relevant universe for consideration of reality, we can still use the term "real" consistently. 

The question is, when we think we're using the term "real" in its most basic sense, are we really, or are we buying into a bigger and more pervasive error theory?  Is our notion of reality relative to a construct?  Well, it obviously is, because if the Matrix taught us anything it's that our senses are the only evidence we have for the real world and they are a fallible intermediary. 

Ergo, nothing is accurately described by the term "real."  So I agree with dumbuket, we have to reject that hypothesis out of hand.

[Reply #29 on:]

 

Prepare yourselves for my attempt at an explanation!
Futurama is real. In our world, in the year 3000, FRy, Leela, Bender, and all the rest wil be real people. Fry is an actual person who actually froze himself in 1999.

Then how come the characters in Futurama aren't aware that their adventures had been shown on TV?  Something to do with the Nibblonians, or the Second Coming of Jesus?

The Simpsons has blurred the lines between fiction and reality on a few occasions, the one that immediately springs to mind being how the characters from Archie Comics were both real AND comic book characters in "Sideshow Bob Roberts."  Also, "The Springfield Files" implied that The X-Files was real within the Simpsons' universe, yet I think there was an X-Files episode where someone was watching The Simpsons.

Overall, I think Digital Dragon's explanation makes the most sense.  The Simpsons is fictional in the Futurama universe, and vice versa.  With that in mind, though, if the Simpsons were to watch "A Big Ball of Garbage" or "Leela's Homeworld," would there still be references to Bart Simpson merchandise?  And what if the Futurama characters were to watch "Fraudcast News"?  Would there be a reference to some other show being cancelled instead?

[Reply #30 on:]

My head hurts, a lot, and it's your fault canned eggs.

I propose this: Let us say that reality, or what the world thinks is reality, is not reality. Let's say that the world we live in is not real in any way, as canned eggs said, and that truly, there is no such thing as reality, and nothing is real, not even Futurama. With this post I am going to destroy what I said earlier, that post was bullshit and I made it up in 5 seconds, this one I have been thinking about since I posted the other.

Futurama was wrong when the professor said that the only universes were the one they live in and the Texas one, Fry was right. There are an infinate number of universes, to each they are real, and the others are not. To each the other is a TV show, or a book. Possibly every universe is being watched by another, but maybe not. I think Futurama, and The Simpsons are there own universe, as are we, and when Futurama watches The Simpsons, they are looking into another universe, just like when Bart and Lisa watch Itchy and Scratchy they are looking into a universe where no one can ever die, except Puchie. And also, when we watch The Simpsons and Futurama, we look into their universe. In every universe they are unaware that when they watch TV, the show is another universe. So each universe has it's own definition of reality, all of which are incorrect. Does that sound possible to any one? I think it sounds so PLAUSIBLE(take that Ozor Mox) that it must be true. So Canned Eggs was correct, reality is just a word that universes use to make themselves feel important, but it means nothing.

And to acknowledge VoVat, in each universe's experiences with the other are hidden, because if they were to revile that they watch the other universe, all universes would go mad and all forms of "reality" would be lost, and the universes would have to start over again. Or maybe when ever one 'reality' makes reference to another, it starts discussions up with deranged fans over which is real, their world or the one they are obsessed with, like PEEL has been having for quite some time, and that is how they are cloaked.

[Reply #31 on:]

Damn you, canned eggs, and your classically trained, finely honed logical mind!

Also, gottalovebender, your multiverse theory is basically what I said before. And now I'm quite certain, based on the amount of time I've spent on this board, that Fox would have cancelled my life seasons ago...

Oh, one more thing- while trying to microwave silverware while downloading goat-porn the other day on my wifi laptop, I accidentially tore a hole in spacetime, opening a gateway to a trans-universal switching nexus. I spent a few hours going from universe to universe, and have discovered that every fictional and imaginary world imagined by man, (as well as every permutation of said worlds, and an infinite number of worlds imagined by other beings) exists as an accessible domain within this nexus. Plus, it has a search engine and a free lemonade dispenser! More updates when I buy some hiking boots.

[Reply #32 on:]

instead of reading all those anyoingly confusing and wrong theorys i have one word for you.

Wizzards.

[Reply #33 on:]

There are only two parallel universes, but there are infinite alternate universes.

Or is it the other way 'round?

[Reply #34 on:]

 

Originally posted by Sal:
instead of reading all those anyoingly confusing and wrong theorys i have one word for you.

Wizzards.

And I have two words for you.

Spelling lessons.

[Reply #35 on:]

Egads! You guys are confusing my tiny brain! Well, trying to avoid all that universe-within-a-universe stuff, I think that what was said earlier on an audio commentary was correct, saying "Futurama is real, Simpsons is fictional" I think Futurama stuff in the Simpsons is just 'cause the show was cancelled, and nobody cares about us poor fans anymore...

[Reply #36 on:]

 

Originally posted by VoVat:
There are only two parallel universes, but there are infinite alternate universes.

Or is it the other way 'round?

Close...What everybody has failed to notice is that we're actually dealing with a perpendicular universe, which also happens to be slightly twisted and warped  (or bent as the case may be.)
 

[Reply #37 on:]

 

Originally posted by Dumbuket: ...have discovered that every fictional and imaginary world imagined by man, (as well as every permutation of said worlds, and an infinite number of worlds imagined by other beings) exists as an accessible domain within this nexus.

Are you insulting what I said about all TV shows being alternate universes? That is so rude. And you said the multiple universe theory was stupid because digital dragon uses dirty words. So I am not going in to what you said, I am going in to what canned eggs and digital dragon said.