Many-Worlds and String Theory

First Postulate: Given an infinite amount of time, the chances of any event A happening approaches 1.
Postulate 2: An infinite amount of universes can substitute for "time" in post. 1.

If there are unrestricted parallel universe, then shouldn't there be a universe in which someone comes here and kills me before I finish this? What if event A is the formation of a being that is capable and willing to do so? Many-Worlds says we cant interact with other universes (quantum suicide) but string theory lets gravity influence parallel universes, and if nothing else see post. 1.

either my postulates are wrong, the 2 theories are wrong, or there are a finite number of parallel worlds, like in The One

The "Many Worlds" interpretation was a thought experiment. A mental exercise in attempting to explain the implications of certain quantum effects to new physics students. It was not and has never been a valid Scientific Hypothesis, let alone a Scientific Theory.

The "theories" being circulated today about it are nothing more than conjecture and are completely unscientific. It is one of many examples of "too much wishful thinking, not enough rational thought" in modern popular Science.

So-called "String Theory" is another perfect example.

So I guess your answer would be:
the 2 theories are wrong
Except that they aren't even Scientific Theories. Seeing people talk about "Many Worlds" and string theories like they were valid Scientific Hypotheses is like seeing children argue over which Power Ranger is the best. EXACTLY like that, in fact.

Also, "the chances of any event A happening approaches 1" is retarded.

I'd have to disagree. Until the technology arrives (see: LHC), thought experiments are all we can go on. They are valid insofar as they can find illogical implications of ideas on what subquantum behavior means, and no one says they are anything more than that.

And the with infinite time, probability becomes counter-intuitive, not retarded.

I HATE women. I never had a girlfriend and never will. The only times I got laid was when I paid a woman or promised her something. I'm never going to hold hands with a chick, kiss a girl intimately because we're in love, or any of the other shit that human beings were made to do. I guess that I'm suppose to be happy masturbating every fucking night. I'm a man with sexual urges and can't get with a female. I'm suppose to be alright with that? THERE IS A FUCKING CURSE ON MY LIFE. A CURSE THAT PREVENTS ANY FEMALE FROM LIKING ME. Oh I forgot, I do get interest from fat chicks and I'm not attracted to fat chicks.
I don't give a fuck anymore. I'm going to become the biggest asshole in the world. I tried the whole being considerate thing and it got me nowhere. If people can't handle my newfound harshness, then bring it on. BECAUSE I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK.
I get happy when I hear about some college slut getting murdered or injured in a hit and run. "oh she was a beautiful and talented girl, how could this happen." I don't know but I'm glad it did.

2 here.

>>4
Thank you for proving my point exactly. You are a perfect example of "too much wishful thinking, not enough rational thought."

Until the technology arrives (see: LHC), thought experiments are all we can go on.
And what, exactly, has come of them? Nothing. Nothing but more conjecture. Less than nothing, actually, because it has diverted precious resources into completely unproductive drivel. It's simply not how Science is done. Facts come first, then observations about those facts, then hypotheses to explain those observations, then experiments to try to falsify those hypotheses. Starting with a pseudo-hypothesis only leads to biased and fallacious results.

They are valid insofar as they can find illogical implications of ideas on what subquantum behavior means
They are not "valid" in any sense. No evidence, no argument. Period. It is nothing more than "philosophical masturbation" and should not be given any real amount of time. Starting from a fallacious premise does not help to illustrate any argument. (Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you've said?)

no one says they are anything more than that.
You, apparently, have been living under a rock.

A poll in 1995 showed that nearly 60% of 72 of the leading "cosmologists and quantum field theorists" considered the Many Worlds Interpretation as true. String "Theory" has only gained in popularity over the last couple decades.

And the with infinite time, probability becomes counter-intuitive, not retarded.

When the OP said...
Given an infinite amount of time, the chances of any event A happening approaches 1.
...he was wrong, which the OP would realize if he thought about it for a few seconds. I honestly don't remember if 3 was me or not (LOL alcohol), but I don't think I/he was implying that Probability itself became retarded....

>>6
In case it's not obvious, I should point out that no physicist takes the many worlds interpretation seriously.  It's just that: an interpretation.  Do particles actually travel every possible path as the Feynmann path integral suggests?  It's unknowable.  The math works, and the physics agrees with experiment.  That's the best we can do.

And what, exactly, has come of them? Nothing
I beg to differ.  They've contributed plenty to math; Witten found the answer to several things that mathematicians have given up on ages ago.  The gauge gravity duality (eg AdS/CFT) is being fleshed out, and under appropriate conditions, it can already model certain features of superconductors.  Gravity duals to QCD are expected to be more tractable under perturbation theory (not yet better than lattice QCD, but give it time).  Science doesn't work the way you think it does.

1) Einstein notices inconsistency between absolute Newtonian spacetime and Maxwell's eqs
2) He dumps the former and invents SR, later GR
3) Particle physicists 30 years later notice that their particles aren't exceeding the speed of light like they're supposed to - late experimental confirmation
4) GPS comes out ~ 50 yrs after Einstein dies; GPS would have failed without GR corrections.

Current state
1) Standard model neglects gravity and neutrino oscillations
2) Some people ignore gravity, and work with GUTs to take care of the former, among other problems with the Standard Model.  Others work with LQG/string theory to find a consistent theory of everything
3) Wait for LHC
4) ???

They are not "valid" in any sense
Validity is relative.  Newtonian mechanics is valid in the speed << c limit.  In an absolute sense, it's never valid; there's always a relativistic  correction.  Current theories are valid in the sense that they've yet to be shown to be logically/mathematically inconsistent.  They're valid as possible theories.  They're not valid as complete theories.

Starting from a fallacious premise
And that would be?

A poll in 1995
People believing in something doesn't mean anything.  Bob believes in the invisible pink unicorn, I believe in the flying spaghetti monster; doesn't make anything true or false.  It's completely irrelevant.

If you're still not convinced, I challenge you to create a complete theory of everything; a theory that includes GR and the Standard model in their respective limits, and can produce a measurable result that deviates from both GR and the Standard Model.