Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Therammo

[Merged] Infinite and eternal universe / multiverse

159 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Therammo

No, because as I stated earlier, there are only certain permutations of physical 'laws' under which a universe may exist. Thus the "probability for infinite variety" does not tend to infinity, but is bound within a limited set which, being limited, reduces the "probability of infinite variety" to zero.

That is true if you look at the laws of our given universe, but if there are infinite universes beyond ours, the laws of phyics may be infinite , thus they have all possible laws, including ANYTHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
If there is an infinite number of universes then whilst it is true that there is an infinite capacity for variation there is also an infinite capacity for repetition.

Based on what?

To embrace one with out embracing the other is, in my opinion, illogical. Both are equally fascinating and equally valid avenues to explore.

As thought exercises, sure they are fascinating and as valid as any other thought exercise, but not as aspects of dimensional theory. I am aware of maybe one (I think it's called Counterpart Theory?) that incorporates identical universes (thought it claims they are similar not identical), but the entire purpose of the other dimensional theories is to show the separations that cause differentiation,which by the very nature of being influenced by alternate 5th dimension timelines, cannot be identical. Alternate timelines are pretty much defined by being divergent, by branching off from a given timeline. You can't logically have two identical timelines (or the universes within them) because something had to be different for them to have become two different timelines to begin with.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

That is true if you look at the laws of our given universe, but if there are infinite universes beyond ours, the laws of phyics may be infinite , thus they have all possible laws, including ANYTHING.

That's...not how physics work. Any world existing in the 3rd dimension is going to have the same physics. If the physics were different, we would not be able to exist within it. Depending on the change, existence may not be able to exist within it.

You are kind of abusing the concept of infinity.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Based on what?

Based on the nature of "infinite".

Edited to add:

Based on the fact that any finite number multiplied by infinity is infinity.

You can't have two identical timelines (or the universes within them) because, by definition, something had to be different for them to have diverged from each other. It isn't logical.

The original post made no mention of divergent timelines, only of infinte universes.

If we are talking divergent timelines then it is logical to assume that, unless the universe is infinite, there can only be a finite number of divergent universes, given that there can be only a finite, albeit mind-numbingly huge, number of decisions, but that is not what the OP was asking.

However if we are talking an infinite number of universes, if you toss a coin there will be an infinite number where the coin lands heads and an infinite number where the coin lands tails. There will be an infinite number where the coin lands edgeways in a crack in the pavement.

Does this situation exist, almost certainly not, but if there are an infinite number of universes why presume that each possible outcome will only occur once?

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therammo

That's...not how physics work. Any world existing in the 3rd dimension is going to have the same physics. If the physics were different, we would not be able to exist within it. Depending on the change, existence may not be able to exist within it.

You are kind of abusing the concept of infinity.

If you assume our universe with known phyics is in a bubble, and there are infinite numbers of those ''bubbles'' then there are diffirent universes ( or bubbles) that have each their own laws of physics, therefore infinite of universes = infinite laws of physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

Funny, I just remembered a very short 1/2 page story I wrote called, "My Strange Life in an Alternate Universe". What's exactly happening in the story even I don't know. If anyone's interested,

http://www.unexplain...showentry=27879

Edited by StarMountainKid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taniwha

If you assume our universe with known phyics is in a bubble, and there are infinite numbers of those ''bubbles'' then there are diffirent universes ( or bubbles) that have each their own laws of physics, therefore infinite of universes = infinite laws of physics.

Then its possible that we live in a universe where multiverses wont ever exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therammo

Then its possible that we live in a universe where multiverses wont ever exist.

I dont think you understand, Im talking about multiverse outside of our universe.. I agree with you that laws of physics as we know can't be applied to multiverse in our universe, but if there something outside our universe, then probably we could find laws of physics that are out of our understanding and knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

If you assume our universe with known phyics is in a bubble, and there are infinite numbers of those ''bubbles'' then there are diffirent universes ( or bubbles) that have each their own laws of physics, therefore infinite of universes = infinite laws of physics.

Within very narrow parameters this is possible, but because there are only very narrow parameters of physical laws which would allow a physical universe to exist then there cannot be "infinite variety" in those universes. They would all basically look the same, with the same 'stuff' comprising them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Based on the nature of "infinite".

Edited to add:

Based on the fact that any finite number multiplied by infinity is infinity.

How does infinity variety translate into infinite repetition?

The original post made no mention of divergent timelines, only of infinte universes.

Can you think of any other way in which alternate universes could exist?

If we are talking divergent timelines then it is logical to assume that, unless the universe is infinite, there can only be a finite number of divergent universes, given that there can be only a finite, albeit mind-numbingly huge, number of decisions,

I'm not seeing the logic in claiming that an infinite universe is required for there to be infinite decisions. What is limiting the number of decisions in finite universes?

but that is not what the OP was asking.

True, the actual question of the OP was more of a reincarnation thing. I do think it still tangentially applies (which, let's be honest here, there is scarcely enough detail in the actual theories for even professional career quantum physicists to even come close to forming an opinion on, let alone those with our amateur level of knowledge to apply directly).

However if we are talking an infinite number of universes, if you toss a coin there will be an infinite number where the coin lands heads and an infinite number where the coin lands tails. There will be an infinite number where the coin lands edgeways in a crack in the pavement.

And an infinite number where it doesn't land at all, or where it lands and no one sees it (along with universes where that becomes the next popular Zen question), etc, etc. Infinity doesn't really need examples of how long it is.

I think we are getting confused over whether this universe is infinite/fine, vs other universes being infinite/fine, and variations thereof.

Does this situation exist, almost certainly not, but if there are an infinite number of universes why presume that each possible outcome will only occur once?

Well, the presumption is by definition, as I mentioned before, with each universe requiring its own timeline and timelines being defined by divergence. But theories aside, from a sheer practical (which is an utterly ludicrous word to use here, I know) standpoint, identical outcomes are unrecognizable. We literally would not be able to tell the difference between one and the other. Some might claim this means that both are one and the same. The same argument, however, applies to simply stating that there is just one outcome.

Let's say we have an experiment where we can expect the answer to be either X or Y. We run the experiment 100 times, and we get either X or Y as a result. We don't report the answer as being 100 X's or 100 Y's. We talk about X or Y as the answer, and the rest as the statistical probability of occurrence. This is because both answers are a product of the same set; we simply intuitively recognize them as being singular.

The only time we recognize the differences between the X's or Y's is when we intentionally run the process to create multiple X's or Y's. In other words, we aren't trying to get a result; we are trying to replicate a result. And even then we have to have subdivisions, or we won't be able to recognize differences, which makes them, by definition, not identical. The closest we can come to identifying "identical" is "very similar".

Which means that, even if there were perfectly identical alternate universes, we would not only not be able to identify them as such, it wouldn't even occur to us to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

If you assume our universe with known phyics is in a bubble, and there are infinite numbers of those ''bubbles'' then there are diffirent universes ( or bubbles) that have each their own laws of physics, therefore infinite of universes = infinite laws of physics.

Ahhh, okay, a fan of Max Tegmark, I see. I like him too. :tu:

However, that still doesn't change my point. As many universes as you would like to conjecture upon, with as many changes in the laws of physics as you like, any universe which we would be able to recognize and exist in must follow our known laws of physics. We quite literally could not exist without them, nor would anything capable of existing within certain specific changes to quantum law be able to exist with ours. Quantum physics is literally what is keeping our atoms bound to each others. Start playing around with the rules and they have no reason to continue acting as they do. Go too far and you run afoul of the Anthropic Principle.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
I dont think you understand, Im talking about multiverse outside of our universe.. I agree with you that laws of physics as we know can't be applied to multiverse in our universe, but if there something outside our universe, then probably we could find laws of physics that are out of our understanding and knowledge.

You are using terminology in a somewhat confusing way. A universe can be part of a multiverse, but a multiverse is not part of a universe. By sheer definition, "universe" encompasses everything within our universe. Anything outside our universe would be in a different universe that is also part of the multiverse. Depending on which categorization of multiverse you follow, the different universes may share constants and symmetry within their given level or type, or they might not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therammo

Ahhh, okay, a fan of Max Tegmark, I see. I like him too. :tu:

However, that still doesn't change my point. As many universes as you would like to conjecture upon, with as many changes in the laws of physics as you like, any universe which we would be able to recognize and exist in must follow our known laws of physics. We quite literally could not exist without them, nor would anything capable of existing within certain specific changes to quantum law be able to exist with ours. Quantum physics is literally what is keeping our atoms bound to each others. Start playing around with the rules and they have no reason to continue acting as they do. Go too far and you run afoul of the Anthropic Principle.

But again, who said there arent universes outside ours, that is perfectly identical to ours, with same quantom physics, therefore our copies?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
But again, who said there arent universes outside ours, that is perfectly identical to ours, with same quantom physics, therefore our copies?

I kinda spent some time explaining specifically that on this very page. Is there a part of my explanation that you are having trouble following?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therammo

I kinda spent some time explaining specifically that on this very page. Is there a part of my explanation that you are having trouble following?

I just can't seem to catch your statement quite clearly. Sorry english is not my main language.

Although I understand like 90 % of what you said, I would appreaciate more simple english :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

But again, who said there arent universes outside ours, that is perfectly identical to ours, with same quantom physics, therefore our copies?

It enters my feeble brain that the quantum event that leads to the singularity (or whatever) that leads to the inflationary epoch that leads to the big bang and so on might have only one way it can happen, in which case each time it happens it leads by necessity to exactly the same universe, repeating over and over, each time in a different set of dimensions.

Of course I suppose quantum randomness would insert differences, or would it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therammo

It enters my feeble brain that the quantum event that leads to the singularity (or whatever) that leads to the inflationary epoch that leads to the big bang and so on might have only one way it can happen, in which case each time it happens it leads by necessity to exactly the same universe, repeating over and over, each time in a different set of dimensions.

Of course I suppose quantum randomness would insert differences, or would it?

Yes, but given infinite amount of time, all randomness would eventually lead to exact same molekyle and atom set, which is exact same as we are experiencing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Yes, but given infinite amount of time, all randomness would eventually lead to exact same molekyle and atom set, which is exact same as we are experiencing now.

No, it would not. The same randomness that is putting together identical sets is also taking them apart. That's why you can't toss a bunch of spare watch parts in a tumbler and have a complete watch pop out.

I'm not sure where to begin explaining the dimension thing, because obviously it becomes complex even at the simplistic level. Can you tell me, did you understand the explanation I posted about 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th dimensions? How we are 3rd dimensional objects and touch on the fourth dimension, Time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therammo

No, it would not. The same randomness that is putting together identical sets is also taking them apart. That's why you can't toss a bunch of spare watch parts in a tumbler and have a complete watch pop out.

I'm not sure where to begin explaining the dimension thing, because obviously it becomes complex even at the simplistic level. Can you tell me, did you understand the explanation I posted about 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th dimensions? How we are 3rd dimensional objects and touch on the fourth dimension, Time?

Did you watch ''Universe of multiverse'' documentary? If so you will see what theory Im backing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

All right, I think I have determined the points of confusion. There seem to be three major ones:

  • Definition of multiverse (as per inflation theory) vs definition of multiple universes
  • Alternate timelines vs. alternate universes
  • The influence of dimensions on the forces of physics

Does anyone agree, disagree, have something to add?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I understand the distinctions you make. Time lines were not in what I was talking about; I consider them an extravagant and unnecessary "solution" to the slit experiments.

The thing is if our present universe is big enough (and lord knows it got pretty big, we don't know how big, during the inflation, even assuming that the inflation is not still going on) there are regions of our universe that are forever beyond our contract because they are receding faster than light-speed. Such regions might well contain duplicates of us, if the universe is really, really big, just out of probability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I understand the distinctions you make. Time lines were not in what I was talking about; I consider them an extravagant and unnecessary "solution" to the slit experiments.

Pretty much all theories of this ilk are considered that by some physicist or another, multiverse theories included.

The thing is if our present universe is big enough (and lord knows it got pretty big, we don't know how big, during the inflation, even assuming that the inflation is not still going on) there are regions of our universe that are forever beyond our contract because they are receding faster than light-speed. Such regions might well contain duplicates of us, if the universe is really, really big, just out of probability.

Yeah, it's that last part I disagree with.

The concept of infinite variation is integral and unavoidable to the Eternal Inflation hypothesis (considering that its current validity is based on "not being wrong" in regards to the dark matter energy calculation). There is nothing, however, in the Eternal Inflation argument that requires infinite repetition. At best, it can be considered an extension of the logic (although I still maintain that the logic in the conclusion of "infinite variety = infinite repetition" to be questionable primae facie).

Considering that we are already dealing with one hypothesis, based on another hypothesis, supporting itself by, well...not being ruled out by a cosmological calculation it didn't actually predict...

Even for theoretical physics dealing with infinite expansion of reality itself, that's quite a stretch.

"Infinite variation" is a requirement for the Eternal Inflation hypothesis to remain valid. "Infinite replication" is...well...quantum physics head-canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I don't see "infinite variation." Each "bubble" might or might not have different physics. That is kinda unresolved, depending on how the physics is determined -- something random or somehow a consequence of deeper physics. Even the random physics would allow every now and then a bubble with the same physics as others.

Consider the extravagance of gazillions of new time-lines (each an entire new probably infinite universe) each time the universe makes a quantum "decision," set to the odds of the outcome of that decision, when some things, like, say, whether or not a given uranium atom will decay having odds each quantum moment, I am out of breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
I don't see "infinite variation." Each "bubble" might or might not have different physics. That is kinda unresolved, depending on how the physics is determined -- something random or somehow a consequence of deeper physics. Even the random physics would allow every now and then a bubble with the same physics as others.

Well, that's one of the points of confusion I mentioned. You are talking about the infinite variation in the sense of the energy variation within the original Inflation hypothesis resulting in infinite Big Bangs in the Eternal Inflation hypothesis. It's not at all unimaginable that the energy of each individual bubble universe's Big Bang fluctuates wildly, and inevitable that some quantities are close enough to replicate our physics either similarly or even identically.

But Therammo is talking about "infinite variation", or rather "infinite replication", in the sense of "alternate timeline", the type where one can be king or street sweeper, where everything is identical up until a few small details. That is not a part of the Eternal Inflation hypothesis.

It is, in fact, practically impossible, considering how even if the laws of physics created in both worlds are identical, all the forces of randomness that created our existence could not by sheer definition of "randomness" be replicated, unless we begin applying patterns to randomness, at which point Chaos theory has to be invoked, which pretty much guarantees variation. There cannot be "parallel evolution" in energy systems.

The sort of comic book alternate universe where everything is perfectly identical up to a given point can only exist with the inclusion of alternate timelines that can diverge at the point of differentiation. That is the only way that the physics, the randomness, the chaos, and any and all factors, can be said to be identical up until the point of divergence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Well the comic book idea of a parallel, but slightly different, universe in the parallel time lines idea would not work. If indeed you could travel from time line to time line, you would have to traverse extremely large numbers of them to find one that was even an atom different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.