37 replies to this topic

[Seeker79]

Frank Merton, on 23 February 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

It has nothing to do with belief in a soul; something identical to me is not me, but a copy of me.  You also have to believe pretty strongly in either predestination or determinism to think that it will do anything other than go off on its own and become something else very quickly, even though up to that point its life events have been the same as mine.

Either way you have to believe in determinism, but under purely materialistic deterministic view point, there is no "you". ' You ' are simply a construct of information a copy of information is essentially the same thing. Information itself is not a thing it's the arrangements of the media.

Yes this other you could go out and do other things, but if the other things are finite then at least one which really means an infinite of you do exactly what you do, did, and will do. Unless those choices are also infinite, be even the. There are going to be sets and subsets, but forgive me my set theory has been far erroded from my college days.

[Frank Merton]

Yea -- in an infinite universe there is not a copy of me out there somewhere but instead an infinite number of copies, and at least an infinite subset of these infinite copies will do what I do, determinism or not.  This even applies if there is an infinite set of things I could do (so long as that infinite set is a Dedekind infinity as the integers -- at other scales of infinity that breaks).

[StarMountainKid]

I have a problem with infinity.

I consider that many other universes are probable, but an infinite number of them? Let us say there was no 'first' universe, that universes have always come into being and always will. So, looking back from our perspective we see what we would consider an infinite past.

But, considering there are universes continually being produced in the future, that infinite future has not happened yet. There will always be one more universe to be created,

So, taking all this multi-verse in one gulp, there will always be an infinite number of universes minus 1.  This is a potential infinity, not yet realized.

What I think is true is that all these universes past and future already exist. There is reasoning behind this concept, which I won't go into now, but only in this sense can an infinity of universes exist.

Infinity is not a concept we can get our heads around, but in an infinity of real objects, this infinity must already be 'complete' to exist. When there is always one more object to be placed on the table there is no infinity of objects.

[Frank Merton]

There are lots of counterintuitive notions in modern thinking, and infinity is perhaps one of the less difficult.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but I do see one big mistake -- you treat infinity as a number that one adds to and subtracts from.  Infinity means endless, so it is not a number.  If anything about the universe is infinite, then it is infinite, and you can add another similarly infinite universe to it and it has not gotten any "bigger."

[Hasina]

StarMountainKid, on 23 February 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

I have a problem with infinity.

I consider that many other universes are probable, but an infinite number of them? Let us say there was no 'first' universe, that universes have always come into being and always will. So, looking back from our perspective we see what we would consider an infinite past.

But, considering there are universes continually being produced in the future, that infinite future has not happened yet. There will always be one more universe to be created,

So, taking all this multi-verse in one gulp, there will always be an infinite number of universes minus 1.  This is a potential infinity, not yet realized.

What I think is true is that all these universes past and future already exist. There is reasoning behind this concept, which I won't go into now, but only in this sense can an infinity of universes exist.

Infinity is not a concept we can get our heads around, but in an infinity of real objects, this infinity must already be 'complete' to exist. When there is always one more object to be placed on the table there is no infinity of objects.

Couldn't you say that about anything that's 'infinite'? It's possible it could go on forever but we'll never prove it ever? Nor will it ever reach 'infinity'?

Your idea intrigues me, say, do all these universes exist outside of time and space and what seems to be one universe's death leading to the creation of another isn't really that? Those two universes's technically, outside of themselves, exist at the same time, but when you go 'inside' one of these universes, you end up getting pulled along their timelines. Am I somewhat close to your idea?

Edited by Hasina, 23 February 2013 - 07:07 PM.

[StarMountainKid]

Frank Merton said:

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but I do see one big mistake -- you treat infinity as a number that one adds to and subtracts from.  Infinity means endless, so it is not a number.  If anything about the universe is infinite, then it is infinite, and you can add another similarly infinite universe to it and it has not gotten any "bigger."

My point of everything already existing is that, in an infinite universe, infinite time must have elapsed for this infinity to exist. Taking this into consideration, an infinite universe must already exist. If new universes are continually being created, time is also continually being created, so the universe cannot be infinite. This is Immanuel Kant's objection to the idea of infinite space.

Are we not considering an infinite 'number' of universes? Is there Infinity in the abstract? If infinity means 'endless', endless what? There can exist 'endlessness' without it being infinite. For instance, space may be finite but unbounded. In this case, the universe may appear to be endless, but it is not infinite. The surface of a sphere is like this.

Now, how many points can we mark on the surface of this sphere? Theoretically and infinite number. But if our 3-dimensional universe is an extension of the 2-dimensional sphere, there can only be a finite number of points - elementary particles, stars, galaxies - that can be placed on the 2- dimensional sphere's surface or within the 3-dimensional spacial volume.

So, in the above case, the universe would appear infinite but would always contain a finite number of universes.

I don't know if the universe is infinite or not or whether our 3-dimensional space is finite but unbounded - enfolded in a 4-dimensional hypersphere - or whatever. You are right that an infinity cannot be added to or subtracted from. But as new universes are constantly being added to a multi-verse, in this sense this kind of universe cannot be infinite. It can only be infinite if its infinity is already 'complete'. If all time and all space already exist as this infinity.

Thinking in this way, the past and the future already exist in the same way as the present exists. Everything has already happened. Our human perception as the past as memory and the future as as not yet realized is only an illusion created by the human mind.

[Seeker79]

StarMountainKid, on 23 February 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

I have a problem with infinity.

I consider that many other universes are probable, but an infinite number of them? Let us say there was no 'first' universe, that universes have always come into being and always will. So, looking back from our perspective we see what we would consider an infinite past.

But, considering there are universes continually being produced in the future, that infinite future has not happened yet. There will always be one more universe to be created,

So, taking all this multi-verse in one gulp, there will always be an infinite number of universes minus 1.  This is a potential infinity, not yet realized.

What I think is true is that all these universes past and future already exist. There is reasoning behind this concept, which I won't go into now, but only in this sense can an infinity of universes exist.

Infinity is not a concept we can get our heads around, but in an infinity of real objects, this infinity must already be 'complete' to exist. When there is always one more object to be placed on the table there is no infinity of objects.

A lot of that has to do with what kind of infinity we are talking about. Let's say this is the only universe and it happens that it performs a big crunch then a bang. Then we only have infinite time. If there are other big bangs going on beyond the horizon ( and I expect there are), now we have infinite time and space. If there are other universes separated  by dimensional barriers. Then we get another dimension of potential infinity. I would think only in the last two secnerios you would be right. All possibilities would exist simultaneously. But that still does not mean that all physical arrangements can exist only possible ones. The possibility of a large solid gold planet is probably nil. There is nothing in physics stopping it from existing, but it's formation has no vector. In this way not everything physically possible is circumstantually possible. Unless some highly advanced race or being decided to make one for some unknown purpose I guess. However by virtue of our own awareness we know we are possible. In deterministic infinities with random components we are sure to exist in all states or have and will exist again.

In these musings, I find a solid argument for the possibility of god while at the same time I find a simple argument of why there may not be one. But cerainly advanced god like beings are certain to come about.

Edited by Seeker79, 23 February 2013 - 08:40 PM.

[StarMountainKid]

Hasina said:

Those two universes's technically, outside of themselves, exist at the same time, but when you go 'inside' one of these universes, you end up getting pulled along their timelines. Am I somewhat close to your idea?

Your idea is interesting. Does time sort of 'sweep' throughout the multi-verse, or does each universe contain its own timeline? I don't know, of course. Time may be a property that only exists within a universe, as that space only exists within that universe. 'Local time' may begin when that universe begins, and may not be coordinated with other universes that had their beginning 'before' or 'after' that universe came into being.

In this were true, I would agree with your supposition. Perhaps time is always local, as in frames of reference in our universe. Looking at the big picture, time may be meaningless considering the multi-verse as a whole. Space may be meaningless as well when we consider the whole shebang, because time and space cannot be separated.

Maybe this whole 'thing' is an infinity of abstractions, of localities of local 'realities' that in some sense, when taken as a whole, dissolve into a sort of existence that has no specific reality to it.  Like a gigantic quantum probability having no 'real' substance to it.

Edited by StarMountainKid, 23 February 2013 - 08:32 PM.

[Rlyeh]

From what I understand of MWI, once the world splits by decoherence they are isolated. There are other "you"s but they are just as much the original as you are.
Not sure how much I believe of it.

[Frank Merton]

Just on one point, whether infinite time must have elapsed for an infinite universe to exist.  Why?  Remember that there is no "before" the beginning of time -- time, if it has a beginning, starts itself.  Avoid thinking about some sort of super-time within which time happens.

My particular view is that there are many universes each with its own time-like dimension (or maybe not, but we would have trouble dealing with one without a time-like dimension and I am prone to think this may be a necessary condition of existence).

That aside, at the "beginning" of our universe, there is nothing, then there is everything.  Whether that "everything" is itself infinite or some sort of unbounded finite entity we don't know, and it doesn't matter.

This is a virtual particle whose conserved aspects total zero, so there is no limit on how big it can be.  Indeed, the bigger it is the longer it will last before it cancels itself out, and we would guess one that is infinite would last forever.

[Frank Merton]

If the universe is infinite, then every possible combination of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, even Einsteinian spaces, will occur over and over, infinitely -- not in any pattern, but by chance here and there.

Any infinite set can be subdivided into an infinite number of infinite subsets.  Therefore in the infinite number of worlds where duplicates of all of us exist, there will always be an infinite subset where the history continues exactly as it continues here, even though the vast, vast majority of the "us's" take off on new histories.

My main point however is that all of this may one day be deducible from what we know, but it isn't now, and even if we can demonstrate that the concept is real, we can never have any contact of any sort with these other "us's" -- rough calculations put even the nearest so far away as to be beyond human comprehension, and well outside our event horizon (the horizon where the space containing receding objects is going away from us fast than lightspeed).

[Frank Merton]

Rlyeh, on 24 February 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

From what I understand of MWI, once the world splits by decoherence they are isolated. There are other "you"s but they are just as much the original as you are.
Not sure how much I believe of it.

This is another kind of infinity of the universe, the one where each quantum decision the universe must make is resolved by creating whatever number of new universes is needed to duplicate the probability of each possible outcome of the decision.  This one doesn't actually reach infinity unless the core it is splitting from already is infinite, but very quickly becomes so big it might as well be infinite from our perspective.  What you say about the decoherence is necessarily true.

About the matter of believability, I wouldn't worry about it.  Most physicists don't.  This is I guess why the Copenhagen interpretation is popular, even though it makes no sense (at least to me -- I would be delighted if someone could set me straight, but good luck, I've poured over this stuff a lot already).  The thing is, science is not about belief.

[Frank Merton]

Seeker79, on 23 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

There is nothing in physics stopping it from existing, but it's formation has no vector. In this way not everything physically possible is circumstantually possible. Unless some highly advanced race or being decided to make one for some unknown purpose I guess. However by virtue of our own awareness we know we are possible. In deterministic infinities with random components we are sure to exist in all states or have and will exist again.

For something to exist it must have a way of coming into existence.  As in your example, there probably is no way for a solid gold planet to evolve, so even in an infinite universe no such thing will be found.

We know life as we know it can come into existence, since we have an example at hand.  However, that is the only form of life we can be sure of -- other forms of life may seem likely but are speculations.

God is another issue entirely.  Super-beings on their Kryptons may exist, provided there are ways for them to evolve, but how does one evolve God?  My reaction is that if you are going to have a universe with God in it, it is better to just start it out with God already in it.

[MedicTJ]

Most probably think this is a silly belief, but it's one that I hold.

I believe when we dream our "soul" or subconscious is in an alternate universe.  A real tangible thing.  I can elaborate further if someone would like me to, but I'll leave it at that for now.

[Rlyeh]

Frank Merton, on 24 February 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

About the matter of believability, I wouldn't worry about it.  Most physicists don't.  This is I guess why the Copenhagen interpretation is popular, even though it makes no sense (at least to me -- I would be delighted if someone could set me straight, but good luck, I've poured over this stuff a lot already).  The thing is, science is not about belief.

From what I've read the many-worlds interpretation is somewhat popular, supported by theoretical physicists like Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking.
I think the most unpopular is "consciousness causes collapse", its a throw back to vitalism and contradictory with natural science/natural history.

Edited by Rlyeh, 24 February 2013 - 08:13 AM.