infinite probability

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

I'm very pleased to meet someone who talks such crap.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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 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).