the universe is infinite right? if it really is then doesnt that mean that there is infinite places for life to exist or in other words 0 chance of it not existing, and doesnt this go for averthing? like everything has to be reality somwhere?

Who says the universe is infinite (I for one believe in a finite, unbounded spherical or torus shaped universe)? And even if it was that doesnt mean something MUST occur. Example, I have the following repeating number: 0.12121212...

This pattern goes on forever, and since it IS a pattern no other numbers have to ever occur, but it is still infinite.

-AntonK

Hi god-of-course,

The universe is infinite in size
The fundamental constants (c, G, h) are constant throughout this infinite universe
On some sufficiently large scale, mass/energy density is uniform (implies infinite mass/energy as well as infinite space)


If these premises are true (they might not be), then the question of whether everything that can exist does exist depends on whether the Cardinality of the number of things that can exist is the same as the number of places available.

I suggest that it's not. I suggest that the places available (the inifinite space of the hypothetical universe) is countably infinite, while the number of things that can exist is uncountably infinite.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000

This article explains it all and then some. (although it is 9 pages long, it's definitely worth the read)

Originally posted by AntonK
Who says the universe is infinite (I for one believe in a finite, unbounded spherical or torus shaped universe)?

-AntonK

Well right now you both are about right and both wrong.

BTW i thought the Universe was shown to be rectangle shaped, a pancake of sorts.

Originally posted by sargentlard
Well right now you both are about right and both wrong.

BTW i thought the Universe was shown to be rectangle shaped, a pancake of sorts.

Didn't think a pancake was rectangular. What do you call your waffles?:m:

I believe Pete is correct;
just because the universe is infinite (assuming for the sake of argument that it is) that does not mean that that every possible event is represented in real life somewhere;

there will also be an infinitely large class of events which do not occur anywhere.
_________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

Originally posted by blackholesun
Didn't think a pancake was rectangular. What do you call your waffles?:m:

I meant the shape was rectangular and it was flat as a pancake......though for the creative there are rectangular pancakes

Depends what u mean by infinite. If u mean that there can be an infinite amount and type of events that can occur in the universe then yes anything can happen. The problem is, I doubt anyone believes that ! If u mean the universe is infinite in size (which I presume u meant by ur references to 'spaces') then it is actually still highly unlikely that 'anything' can happen coz its only infinite in size and nothing else. Its probably infinite in size but with a set amount of laws and particle types so not anything can happen. That answers the last part of ur question but as regards life (which we know has happened) I believe that an infinite universe should contain pockets of life elsewhere but is the universe really infinite in size???

Here's one possible way of looking at it.

If the Cosmos (however many universes there may be) is either eternal or infinite, and it surely must be one of these, then logic suggests that everything that can happen must.

As consciousness is one of the things that can happen, for some unknown reason, then it will happen an infinite numer of times.

As every state of consciousness is unique from moment to moment and from entity to entity (try imagining how any two could be the same) then an awful lot of states of consciousness occur, and I would suggest it is an infinite number.

I wouldn't call this infinite lives since I don't know what 'life' is, but it must be an infinity of experiences. After all it's a very big number even for individuals entities.

It's a pretty awesome setup.

If the Cosmos (however many universes there may be) is either eternal or infiniteif you have enternal universe, then it means that it has an infinite time, no? I don't think that time can be seperated from space

btw on the subject -
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them. However, not every one of them is
inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
Douglas Adams

if you have enternal universe, then it means that it has an infinite time, no? I don't think that time can be seperated from spaceIt can in any given reference frame.
Maybe Eternal translates to "most worldlines are temporally infinite in both directions".

As I have no idea what time is I assume 'timelessness' to be equivalent to 'eternal' in most contexts. If an argument holds for both of them then it probably holds for the real thing. This is why I don't treat space and time as fundamental.

I like to think of time as a vector
how right that is...duno

Someone calculated that the minimum probability accounts for all atoms in the universe and is like 1e-4,000,000 (or so, I'm kind of guessing at the actual number). Anything less likely than this has a 0 probability of occuring.

Reality is defined by MY perception of it. I say "my" because not one of you can prove your existence to me beyond all doubt, because all that I have are my senses. These can be decieved quite easily. Following this premise, which by the way I cannot prove to you, nor you prove to me, then the universe has infinite possibilities for the simple reason that those possibilities exist in your mind. You must assume that your own conciousness is all that can be proven to exist because it is the instrument by which you test the universe. You can only be reasonably sure about any possibility, never completely. But the simple fact that you can be reasonably sure is enough for that particular event to happen, or, at least, be possible.

I really tire of this "my mind is the centre of the universe" talk and it unfortunately seems to be growing in popularity.
What the hell is the point? Its such an arrogant proposal. Are you saying that if you ceased to exist the universe would cease to exist merely because it ceases to exist in your mind? Are you sure your mind isn't just the activity of an organ doing its fumbling best to make sense of something that is very real and would exist with or without a bald ape observing it?

As for the subject, I admit I used to assume the same, that if the universe was infinite every possibility would have to happen an infinite number of times, but WCF's pattern example is a really good point. Natural laws are more of a set pattern(all be it an incredibly elaborate one) than random occurences.
But then with that in mind does that mean there would be an infinite number of exact earths? :confused:

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I really tire of this "my mind is the centre of the universe" talk and it unfortunately seems to be growing in popularity.
What the hell is the point? Its such an arrogant proposal. Are you saying that if you ceased to exist the universe would cease to exist merely because it ceases to exist in your mind? Are you sure your mind isn't just the activity of an organ doing its fumbling best to make sense of something that is very real and would exist with or without a bald ape observing it?

I can understand people who don't like it. However could you explain why it is arrogant, and what evidence there is that it's false? Perhaps also you might wonder why it is becoming such a popular view in and out of philsophy and science. Bear in mind that the idea that consciousness is the underlying organising force in the universe doesn't mean that it would cease to exist if you and me ceased to exist. However our conceptions of it would cease to exist.

[As for the subject, I admit I used to assume the same, that if the universe was infinite every possibility would have to happen an infinite number of times, but WCF's pattern example is a really good point. Natural laws are more of a set pattern(all be it an incredibly elaborate one) than random occurences.
But then with that in mind does that mean there would be an infinite number of exact earths? :confused: [/B]
Conceptions of the world are generally considered to incommensurable and unique. In this sense there are a pretty much an infinite number of perceptions of it. Is there ONE reality underneath all those perceptions? That's the big unanswered question. Nobody has yet shown that we can ever answer it. The idea of relativity, combined with the 'theory-laden' nature of perception, suggests that it's not even a sensible question.

I would have to agree. I have no sure belief in anything divine and as such I do not fear for peoples souls and I do not particularly fear divine punishment. I know I seem to be getting off track, but stay with me. My reasoning behind why murder is wrong is not because a God commanded it and only a little about what that murder may be taking from people (loved ones, etc.). My reasoning as to why murder is wrong is that everytime someone is killed or dies, a universe ceases to be (or is at least taken from where we can access it). Every person has a unique view of the universe, composed of everything from their religious convictions, scientific knowledge, political and social ideas, to personal delusions. I know that these same influences have made the universe I perceive real, and I do not want my thoughts lost to the void.

Canute - Infinite probability and infinite possibility are not the same. Let us say the chances of live evolving on any given planet are 1 in 1 billion (I am just throwing out numbers, I do not remember what Drake worked it out to be or if Drakes equations are even still in favor). Now there may be an infinite number of worlds were life could possibly evolve, but that does not change the probability of it happening. The chance that life would evolve on any one of the infinite number of worlds is still 1 in 1 billion which is not a very good chance. Of course, I do understand that by law of averages, an infinite universe should have an infinite worlds with life, but on the hand there is a chance that the dice only rolled snake eyes once - us.

- KitNyx

KitNyx - Agree with your first para. but I think the second is not sensible.

Life is not yet defined. It's not even clear whether something has to be biologically 'alive' to be conscious. The notion that consciousness is structures of quantum coherence in an infinite zero point field is currently being seriously suggested. (Based on new-ish findings biology and elsewhere).

Biological life emerged almost the instant it was possible on this planet. I think you'll find that the view that life is improbable is dying fast. It seems to almost unstoppable. Drake's equations are ad hoc guesswork as far as I can tell.

Because of this I don't think that life is the issue. We define life as beginning at a certain level of biological complexity. However there is no dividing line between life and non-life that isn't an arbitrary guess.

I agree with you about the Drake equation. It was put together a long time ago when we knew much less about the universe and is probably not even considered valid anymore.

I also agree that in order to figure out the chances of life evolving we need to adequitely define life. If you consider crystals life, then the chances that live will evolve in any gives star system is VERY good.

What I was trying to say about infinite probability vs. infinite possibility - if there is only a tiny chance that life will evolve in any given star system then each star system has that same tiny chance of producing life. Whereas, in previous postings it sounded as if people were arguing that the chances that life would evolve would be greater if you have a greater number of star systems. This is not necessarily true. For example, a d20 (20 sided dice), law of averages says that if it is rolled 100 times you should land on each number 5 times, but it hardly ever works out that way, you could very well never even roll a 20. The same goes with the universe, we may very well be the only solar sytem that rolled that 20.

- KitNyx

I see what you mean. But surely if there are infinite throws of the die then there will be infinite occurences of each number?

We really don't know anything about this Perhaps life occurs just once in each of an infinity of universes, or an infinity of times in a shared one. Perhaps there is no dividing line between life and non-life, just a continuum of levels of experience. Who knows?

Agreed...the law of averages says that even if it is a 1:1 billion chance that life will evolve, in an infinite universe there should be an infinite number of star systems with life.

OK, look at it this way. If you use this same rule of infinite possibility = infinite probability, then no matter how slim the chances there should be aliens invading us right now. If you take the slim chance that life will evolve, multiplied by the slim chance that that live will develop intelligence, multiplied by the slim chance that the aliens will develop interstellar travel, multiplied by the slim chance that they happen to set out this direction, multiplied by the slim chance they would arrive right this instant etc, etc... No matter how far fetched this sounds it should be the case if possibility and probability are both infinite.

Then again it could be that the only reason it is not happening is because of distance. The wave/particle characteristics of quantum physics can (and I believe are) be explained through probabilities. Is distance the only thing that keeps possibility and probability from being equal? Are the extended dimensions....Aaargg....I apologize for the tangent, but I feel like it is on the tip of my tongue...oh well, I write it down for later contemplation...

- KitNyx

KitNyx

I think I see your point.

Your second para. seems right. It would mean an infinity of universes all unique and all co-existing, every possible state at once (since, before time came into existence, there was no reason for these states not to all come into existence at once, and therefore be in existence all at once).

What stops possibility becoming probability? Nothing much as I can see, except two things.

The first thing is time. John Wheeler jokingly called time 'what stops everything from happening at once'. Perhaps it really is. Some possible states of universes can only occur as part of an ordered time sequence, as part of a narrative in time. (You and I being here talking about this for instance).

The second thing is rationality. Most people agree that for logical reasons rational beings could not exist in an irrational universe. It may be therefore that only rational universes can exist, or at least be known to exist.

Maybe there are other constraints also. In this way not every universe would be possible, certain combinations would be impossible. All universes could occur, but only in certain combinations. They would be almost infinite in number but not quite.

Then again perhaps the whole thing is just impossible to make any sense of.

I am not sure I agree with your thought on living in a rational universe. Hawking stated in "A Brief History of Time" that for Time to "flow" it must "flow" both ways. If this is true, we actually live in a universe that has a totally irrational aspect as well. A universe in which the laws of causality do not hold true. Where the effect happens before the cause...utter chaos. We exist in both universes since they are actually two aspects of one. The reason we cannot remember the future is because our minds can not make sense of it so it does not even try. Just because our minds blank it out does not mean it does not exist. It just means that we never developed a way to see it.

I am not saying I believe the crap I just wrote...just an idea.

- KitNyx

Originally posted by KitNyx
I am not sure I agree with your thought on living in a rational universe. Hawking stated in "A Brief History of Time" that for Time to "flow" it must "flow" both ways. If this is true, we actually live in a universe that has a totally irrational aspect as well. A universe in which the laws of causality do not hold true. Where the effect happens before the cause...utter chaos. We exist in both universes since they are actually two aspects of one. The reason we cannot remember the future is because our minds can not make sense of it so it does not even try. Just because our minds blank it out does not mean it does not exist. It just means that we never developed a way to see it.

I am not saying I believe the crap I just wrote...just an idea.

- KitNyx
I'm very pleased to meet someone who talks such crap.:D Actually it seems perfectly sensible to me.

I don't think that you can say that there's anything irrational about time flowing both ways. If you think about it there are always two opposite ways of thinking about anything. For example someone here has argued that the universe is shrinking, on the grounds that the evidence would be identical to what we see now. He appears to be right, although it takes a bit of thought to figure out how it would work. Time similarly can be seen as going either or both ways.

I disagree when you say that universes can be created free of consciousness, but let's say it's a matter of opinion.

Canute

Oh, I was not saying the universe is irrational for "flowing: both ways. I am saying trying to understand a universe in which no laws exist in irrational. I agree that as long as you can "see" the past as well as the future it makes perfect sense. Can you image if we existed only being able to see the future, not the past?

I am not sure what you mean "created free of consciousness". I do not remember agreeing to such a thing.

- KitNyx

Oh yes, I misread one of your sentences. Sorry.

Originally posted by KitNyx
Oh, I was not saying the universe is irrational for "flowing: both ways. I am saying trying to understand a universe in which no laws exist in irrational. I agree that as long as you can "see" the past as well as the future it makes perfect sense. Can you image if we existed only being able to see the future, not the past?


interesting.
flowing: both ways.
Just like a begining and the end of process occur in one function of time.
althoug the process itself flow with the time
the process will be last forever..........

we can use non-linear math to explain such as phenomenon.
when the equation of process produce infinite number, will cause another new process.
as simple as that.

I'n not sure what you mean by the following statement:
"althoug the process itself flow with the time"

- KitNyx

the universe is infinite right? if it really is then doesnt that mean that there is infinite places for life to exist or in other words 0 chance of it not existing, and doesnt this go for averthing? like everything has to be reality somwhere?

The universe is not infinite the way you think of it, it's more like a circle, goes round and round, the start is the end, every point is the middle (wherever you point your finger on the circle, there will be an equal length starting from both sides).

But there has to be some space outside and some time before the universe, since if nothing existed then nothing could be created.

Outside the universe is the real infinity, and the universe which has a fake infinity is just a bubble in it, a closed system.

If we assume that the universe is a bubble in infinity, then there should be a infinity of bubbles (remember, infinity is not a number or countable, so even if a infinity of bubbles is larger than infinity itself they can still exist, since each bubble is infinitly small (as is everything else smaller than infinity).

To clarify this, if we think of infinity as 10 then each bubble must be larger than one point so there isn't room for 10 bubbles. But since infinity is infinitly large, everything smaller must be infinitly small and so take up no space (well the space it takes up exactly matches the size needed for a infinite amount of bubbles)

Maybe that's the same as saying that infinity is 10.1238761237....to infinity. And every point is 0.1238761237....to infinity.

Since there is a infinity of possible universes, each universe has it's own laws, and works in it's own way, then the possibilities are neverending.

That there are more than one universe is also suggested by the anthropic principle, the universe is simply so fine-tuned that it has to exist more than one universe.

One argument is "if the universe wasn't so fine-tuned then no one would live to observe it". Sure but that only answers the question why we are in this particular universe instead of any other. It doesn't answer how the values came to be so fine-tuned.

So if you are a materialist then you have to face the fact that you will live again after you died, since you have lived before (remember, you didn't exist before you were born either). Why do you have to face that? Because if "you" is only in the brain, then that is doomed to be repeated. (it might be anyways also).