If there are an infinite number of universes and it was possible that a universe is "out there" where a chocolate statue of you is on the moon... but there would be an infinite number of universes with a chocolate statue of you on the moon because that's how big infinity is.
This sort of goes back to the little video exchange we had a while back about the game of chess and possible positions one could play. I personally think that we are in the only possible Universe. Hopefully we're the cue ball in the middle of a masse shot.
1.I’m studying philosophy at college and when we talk about determinism, we argue about how because of external effects on our personalities and our personality’s effect on our actions, our actions are limited and then so is our freedom. We also talk about how far this goes and whether or not we have it at all. I have a very poor range in words etc. and really find it hard to follow what’s going on lol.
Very thought provoking indeed, in my experience with extreme perceptual distortion and almost complete dissolution other possible universes cannot be pigeonholed at all into the same one which we exist in. Massive assumptions have to be made for that to be the case, it would most likely be something far beyond our grasp and ability to comprehend it.
Make more like this. Fun stuff. Feynman, I think, once exclaimed with a smile something like, "there could be just ONE electron 'in' the universe, its just that its velocity is infinite."
very thoughtful video. I used to worry about there being parrallel universes because i realised in one i would be leading a truly wretched life. Then of course I realised that if parallel universes did exist in another I'd be leadingt a truly fantastic life and it'd all cancel each other out I suppose.
I sometimes think that the version of the multiverse theory you discuss is driven by an intellectual hubris--one which assumes that anything conceivable must have a corresponding ontological status. What can be more arrogant than to effectively believe that if I can imagine it, it must exist.
ive studied physics for a while, and all professors i had have one thing in common: They like the standard model and quantum electrodynamics/quantum chromodynamics, but they joke about string theory. String theory and m-theory are dead, unless we observe supersymmetric particles. SUSY, super-symmetry, is still in the game, for now. But really, for our universe, to explain it as best as possible, its the standard model (higgs 2012/2013), general relativity, and quantum electrodynamics.
Firefox can handle the file, even if its near 100 megabyte, so check out the ultra deep field from hubble. Its quite an experience to just view the file, zooming in and out, seeing all these galaxies. You dont want to miss it, its eye-opening. And its beautiful, it really is. What i think is that the universe got ripped apart relativistically, and in the distance we are looking at an event horizon. Just like a black hole event horizon, but we are inside.
... So if the universe initially, at some stage, expanded faster than the speed of light, what would we see? When looking into the distance, we would also be looking into the past (true). There would be a boundary, anything moving away from us faster than the speed of light is unobservable. Redshift. What do you see in the "ultra-deep field"? Download it and look at it, 100 megabyte jpeg, when i look at it i see a relativistic event horizon. The boundaries of it.
I think there is maybe a multiverse, and that is because the big bang expanded so damn fast in its early stages. But that has nothing to do with these misinterpretations of quantum mechanics, no, its following from general relativity. In the very far distance, we see very old galaxies. But what if the expansion of the universe was faster than the speed of light? (end of comment one on this, need a second comment)
"anything that can happen will happen" <--- I dont think so. Quantum mechanics is a bit strange, but all the strangeness of quantum mechanics goes away if you redefine time: The present time is when wave functions exist. Once wave functions collapse, it turns into past time. DONE. Just redefine time: Wave functions exist in present time, and only in present time. The collapse of these possibilities into one reality is the boundary between present and past. Think about it.
It is an interesting question. I think determining the boundary conditions for the amount of possibilities is something so incredibly difficult that we may never be able to know. Unfortunately this would relegate my statements forever to the realm of philosophy rather than specifying more deeply into science, but that's the fun of the game.
I don't know if multiple universes are real, we'll probably never find out. But who cares, there's so much mystery in our own universe that it boggles the mind. Sorry to turn this into a talk about drugs, but I always remember that my experience on dmt is like being in a different universe. You feel like solving mysteries, here, solve this one....Why, oh why, does all this exist?
...because that's its nature, it can do no other than to exist...probably not a very satisfying answer, but that's all I've got.:)
the drug experience - since the subject and object are inseparable, we can't discount the subjective and experiential states, as some rationalists are too quick to do.
I experienced timelessness/eternity whilst experimented with LSD in my youth. Past, present and future completely fell away...
@carmel1119 Time is certainly an illusion ..just as we are and everything else is. Objectively, there is emptiness, neutrality, but inside the illusion, everything is real and exists eternally.
@carmel1119 Emptiness as neutrality and voidness, being everything and nothing as perfect stillness. Might there be consciousness at the center? Possibly.
I think that if only one cognition is available pertaining to one universe at a time, then we have to do our best in thinking that this is the only one that exists. And even if we're wrong, then we've done the best we could with what's available to our senses. But i'm not exactly as well read as some of the others here concerning multiple realities.
Hypothetically, a being from another universe could find ours as equally as impossible to imagine. "Planets go AROUND stars?! That's just retarded!"
Maybe trying to imagine an infinite plane of universes is simply too tiresome for a human mind to do; perhaps its one of those things we know *of*, but cannot hope to ever really understand.
That's so weird, I was thinking about this today. Because in the TV show Fringe, there are two universes. There is another you in the other universe but they're different based on the choices they've made. I was thinking about the major choices that I've made in my life and that my life would look very different if I'd have made the opposite choices. Not good or bad, just different.
would 'determinism is true' itself be a contingent truth? if so, by defininition, there would a world according to which determinism is false. similarly there would also be a world according to which inteterminism is false. is it obvious which subset 'this world' falls into? plus any alternative world need not necessarily be concrete.
Determinism requires complete knowledge, which is fundamentally impossible (thank you herr Gödel). The only way reality could be completely understood is from "outside" reality and that is an impossible position to be in. The "number" of Universes doesn't change that.
CR are you sure that just because there may be impossible universes, that necessarily means there can't be an infinite number of universes? Im not sure, infinity boggles my mind.
@SatiricalStewie The fact that some universes might be prohibited does not prevent the number of universes from being infinite. For example, you can still have an infinite number of integers even if you ignore all decimals.
@XamericanX yeah that was what I had in mind, I had in mind the idea of subtracting from infinity, but I think your description is better. But infinity is a tricky thing!
@SatiricalStewie Yes, it is tricky indeed. There are a number of different kinds of infinities as well, some of which are called countable and others are uncountable. The notion of subtraction does not apply in uncountable infinities.
Science has yet to prove that is are other universes. Speculation is fun to do now and then. I used to think I could be in the lottery ticket winner universe...
Multiple realities or one, both ideas seem equally possible to me. I think it's nearly impossible to determine something like that, especially without any apparent experience thereof.
I think for the many worlds theory to make any sense it needs to be indeterministic, as a cause cannot be the same cause for two different effects (a cause cannot be the cause for effect A over effect B, and at the same time the cause for effect B over effect A). For something to be pushed to "another possibility" that would require an acausal event somewhere along the way.
What "can" happen does happen, the key word being "can." if it's not possible for the laws of physics to be different in another universe than that would limit what "can" happen.
But, the only property "infinity" could be said to have is no limitations.
What "The Grand Design" book says. Not only is it that everything that could happen will happen in some universe, but every history that could be our history will be our history. That shit was mindfuck to me, but that is what quantum interpretation always is... mindfuck.
In other words, all the quantum events from the beginning of time, which would lead to the exact state of this present, will be one of our many histories. So, we will not just have one history.
It's all a mistake by the human mind due to living on the surface of the earth. There is no "number of events" other than the one we quantify to create order out of chaos. It's also necessary to name and number events when communicating between minds. In reality there's only a big continuum which can be subdivided into what looks like repeatable patterns or events. it's impossible to take an event out or remover it out of the continuum without ripping reality apart.
Some inevitabilites that come out of infinity maths are really, really mind-blowing ... in possibly a very real sence; Kantor drove himself mad trying to see 'into the mind of god' ... You can see the G-word might have a valid position in this inherently heirachical model, but human notions of such are woefully lacking and there's a real risk of becoming mentally harmed by insiting on the precise language of maths to define something that is and will always be, somewhere somehow, an enigma?
@jfeuiebf 'Is there an univers when animals digest rock?'
Quantum mechanics says that if you keep designing an infinite number of times, then that, however improbable, will exist within a universe with rules baffling to us but which make such realities possible.
As mad as it sounds, it is /inevitable/ -- and physicists embracing the mathematics of infinites (it droke Kantor mad) is in agreement about the phenomenol, and perhaps sometimes rather creepy, implications.
all those universes are probably different stages of time of this universe; however I dont think there can bea universe which has different fundamentals such as atoms.
@Ioganstone 'all those universes are probably different stages of time of this universe;'
Yes. And outside of this /perception/ (a slice of experience and probable /movements/), it must agree that this universe as we know it is neigther at the begniing, end or middle of such an event, since it can't have one. It is infinity. in some hard to imagine sense, it is like one angle of infinitely fine degree through a multidemensional fractal. This is empirically, 100% factually accurate.
I can't see how we could ever prove an infinity of anything, but we could deal with numbers so large that they are effectively infinite to us. But even considering an infinite number of universes, I don't think that that should mean that every combination of possibilities that the human mind can conceive need be possible. In the universes that support life, I think those universes are so formed as to have limits, or they wouldn't be life supporting. Perhaps only human imagination is infinite.
@DaithiDublin 'Perhaps only human imagination is infinite.'
in which case, we must have created ourselves. Within this infinity sequence. Which is within an infine number of other infinite 'spaces'. It's hard to even find the language to properly convery the concept. Universe is our description of inevitable conditions within infinities, the inevitability required for us to be able to have this conversation about what, fundamentally, that means. It' so remote -- yet inevitable.
@fuckoverload 'It's hard to even find the language to properly convery the concept'
I think the bubble or foam visual is the best, providing you don't then try to envision a container! But as for inevitability, I think the very idea of infinity argues against that. Say there *was* a universe somewhere exactly mirroring ours except the colour spectrum is reversed, it may be conceptually inevitable, but would we ever find it to prove that fact? Is inevitability only a potential factor?
@DaithiDublin 'Is inevitability only a potential factor?'
As in there must be a temporal property to it. For existence itself to be possible? Otherwise it truly is a nothing? Which clearly it isn't. Unless, in some unfathomable sense, we're all figments of our own imaginations which don't really 'exist' in any definable way. It's an interesting thought. I'd have to chew on it. I'm really not certain. But logically I think it was, in a sense, inevitable I'd have these thoughts.
@fuckoverload No, I'm picking up on what Fred said here, about having to admit at some point that some things just aren't possible. I agree with that. Any universe that might exist will still have physical laws. And a universe where we all float 4" off the ground is not possible, in my mind, because such a universe could not support life. If biological molecules are floating around, how do they clump together to begin evolving? Infinite variations don't mean infinite possibilities.
@DaithiDublin 'And a universe [...] 4" off the ground is not possible, in my mind,'
In your mind ... I accept. Something interesting happens when you subtract infinites from one another. The answer can be /any/ finite number. If 'reality' building takes infinite mathematical language sequencing, it stands to reason infinities are going to be subtracted from one another and produce restrictive versions of a larger infinity built of more combinations. 'Universe' is just one product.
@DaithiDublin It's inevitable that a version of you in some sense will emerge in another life-supporting reality that's within the bounds of your imagination. So there's really no point stressing about even death. In its purest form of nothing, it seems only to be what, if added up, the universe itself is made from. And yes, that really is true.
@fuckoverload Just jumping in here. I think in our guts we all know that there is just one universe. And it's less than entirely awesome. Now do your damned laundry and clean the dishes and stop fantasizing about damned excuses.
@strontiumcrypt 'Just jumping in here. I think in our guts we all know that there is just one universe. And it's less than entirely awesome. Now do your damned laundry and clean the dishes and stop fantasizing about damned excuses.'
Gut feelings are not of the same value as logical deductions. It's inevitable that some are going to be prejudiced to see it the way you say. But i's a restrictive vision and inherently both logical and illogical. By its improbability of existence it has to be ...
@strontiumcrypt ... some kind of infinity 'experience'. The size of the numbers needed to describe the odds are somehow incomprehensibly gigantic yet still make-ever-much-biggerable. A googleplex can't be written using each atom of the universe as a number. Graham's number is vastly, vastly, vastly bigger that googleplexes raised to the power of googleplexes. These are also conceptially both vast and tiny at the same time, depending on the frame of reference within an infinite sequence.
@DaithiDublin 'I can't see how we could ever prove an infinity of anything'
But it is mathematically proven, because everything about you, fundamentally, is maths working, from your thoughts to your movement of matter. The number of sequence runs needed to define a universe (black hole mathematics, quantum theory) is beyond imagining, let alone comprehension. But somehow you know that it can still be raised to the power of itself. each iteration becoming vaster still. Endlessly.
@DaithiDublin Another way of putting it would be: Considering the odds of purely randomly building a universe from an unknowable 'genesis' pile of a mathematics, isn't the /only/ feasible explanation that the odds are so astonomically high and, if infinity is a type of forever that has size (very hard to grasp), us existing /most highly probably/ was inevitable, since forever will make the unimaginable definite ... inevitably.
@DaithiDublin 'I can't see how we could ever prove an infinity of anything'
But it is mathematically proven, because everything about you, fundamentally, is maths working, from your thoughts to your movement of matter. The number of sequence runs needed to define a universe (black hole mathematics, quantum theory) is beyond imagining, let alone comprehension. But somehow you know that it can still be raised to the power of itself. each iteration becomes vaster still. Endlessly.
@BeardedBill86 'fuckoverload And where did that really smart thing come from?'
From infinite reiterations of possibility, of course. It will inevitably occur an infinite number of times, becoming infinitely more complex with each of the infinite re-iterations. When particular types of sentience emerge, they will inevitably grow in understanding and advance at a logathimic rate ... forever. Different sized infinites. Hard to get your head around, isn't it? But it /has/ to be tru
@fuckoverload 'It has to be both true and not true, since both can exist and inevitably will.'
It just depends which size infinity you're looking at.
This is all mathematically impeccable, you know.
Think about what it's saying. It /is/ quite hard to get your head around, but there really is no other explanation for existence itself, because infinity is inevitability. ACAI.
@BeardedBill86 True. I guess there must be either one universe, or a specific number of universes, or an infinite number of universes (whatever that means). All of these options seem pretty gobsmacking to me. Kind of like what Arthur C Clarke said about extra-terrestrial life, 'either we are alone in the universe or we're not, and both conditions are equally amazing'.
... It's the only rational explanation I can think of for why this giant mystery place came into existence. Something maybe really smart decided to foster it. Maybe.
This is where mathematics comes in handy. We know that it isn't possible for there to be universes where space is homogeneous and momentum isn't conserved; or where space is isotropic and angular momentum isn't conserved; or where time is homogeneous and energy isn't conserved; or where matter particles don't interact with each other via a gauge force; or where the charges associated with the gauge forces aren't conserved. All this thanks to Noether's Theorem and the Gauge Principle.
@MrRobotoToo Yes. But since it is possible for each of those conditions /not/ to be fulfilled, it will inevitably exist if the fabric of reality itself is infinity. It is beyond our understanding what such a realm would be like, perhaps because sentience itself wouldn't be possible there. Who knows?
... So the case is made that infinity is best thought of as a kind of physics buider. The will be things other than physics that we can't even imagine that it will build. It is inevitable. It is inevitable there will be sentiences much smarter than the human who will be able to jog through time, make predictions, and play the whole thing like a game, some trying to kill you and some not.
Er ... or something like that. Isn't Gary just the old joy bundle these days? LOL. ACAI.
@conferencereport Its a TV show from the 90s where these guys keep sliding into alternative universes trying to get home. Kinda like quantum leap but instead of through time its through alternative universes.
I watched a whole load of it. Its was full of all sorts of alternative plots and crazy universes. Loved it!
So what does the previous say about our situation now? Is it predetermined? In a sense, that /has/ to be true ... but I prefer the tighter description 'inevitable'. However, down at the subatomic scale, bits of 'stuff' actually teleport, particle pairs transmit information between one another instantaneously, 'stuff' chaotically / maybe randomly comes into and winks out of our Frame of Perception, even (controversially) possibly breaks cause and effect. Our minds are electron flows. So ...
Universes are infinite. I can't put it better than that, only add more words of explanation. Infinities are endless containers; mathematicians who deny them are avoiding a whole branch of philosophical thinking that the mathematics demands. Within an infinity what we call universes are inevitable, as is everything that a sentience can imagine. /Inevitable/, no matter how improbable. The implications of what self-evidently /has/ to be an Absolute Truth are staggering. watch?v=KNJgXbAFmmQ
There are an infinite number of combinations. Some combinations clearly won't produce what we'd call sentience, with functions like long-term reasoning / event and emotion and calculation and association memory, phsyical environment mapping ... they might be the more exotic /patterns / time.domain.software / etc. Classifications, obviously. That might be more rare, but obviously within infinity it will logically occur an infinite number of times...
@fuckoverload Is there a universe in which everything suddenly poofs into existence out of nothing? If not then then the number of universes is constrained, presumably by the laws of physics. I'm curious as to how tightly that constraint operates; is it ultimately contrained to the singular.
@conferencereport I think the constraint is that we experience it in a particulary tiny slice of something like time. But it's an infinitely re-iterating machine, so everything -- no matter how bnizarre -- will /inevitably/ exist for the amount of time it's viable and remains a sequence of maths that can be self-aware and maintain its existence. It will re-iterate infinitely, but you can see sizes within the infinities. Everyting truly, ultimately, must be inevitable...
@conferencereport "I'm curious as to how tightly that constraint operates" This is wrapped up in the cosmological constant and gauge principle..If the universe expands too quickly then matter would just blow apart, too slowly and matter wouldn't even exist..Everything just has to be right, Planck's constant, gravitational force G, etc..
I think the answer is 17, but in another possible universe that number is 42. And which of those universes you collapse into is determined by chance. So basically you are unlucky to not live in the universe where a chocolate statue of you exists on the moon. And yes you had no choice which universe you collapse into every moment, but that's precisely why you might be free. On the cosmic irony.
@conferencereport I gave those as a present to someone some time ago, but I must admit I haven't read them myself. My luck, in another universe I have read them and would be telling you a whole range of possible opinions about them.
@conferencereport I've never read him, do you recommend him? I somehow ended up with a fascinating. curious audio file on my iPod years ago from someone I couldn't place. He sounded like Carl Sagan to my ears, but was talking about Shinran Buddhism, and the concept of Namu Amida Butsu. I only recently found out it was Wilson. I love his voice, and I imagine I couldn't help but read him in that voice. Which might take a while...
If there are an infinite number of universes and it was possible that a universe is "out there" where a chocolate statue of you is on the moon... but there would be an infinite number of universes with a chocolate statue of you on the moon because that's how big infinity is.
deepashtray 1 week ago
This sort of goes back to the little video exchange we had a while back about the game of chess and possible positions one could play. I personally think that we are in the only possible Universe. Hopefully we're the cue ball in the middle of a masse shot.
TheSkepticalAtheist 3 weeks ago
1.I’m studying philosophy at college and when we talk about determinism, we argue about how because of external effects on our personalities and our personality’s effect on our actions, our actions are limited and then so is our freedom. We also talk about how far this goes and whether or not we have it at all. I have a very poor range in words etc. and really find it hard to follow what’s going on lol.
JellaMonTaco 3 weeks ago
Very thought provoking indeed, in my experience with extreme perceptual distortion and almost complete dissolution other possible universes cannot be pigeonholed at all into the same one which we exist in. Massive assumptions have to be made for that to be the case, it would most likely be something far beyond our grasp and ability to comprehend it.
neuro369 4 weeks ago
@RationalSuicide In marked contrast to your comment, the relevance of which is only matched by its priceless incisiveness.
conferencereport 1 month ago
Make more like this. Fun stuff. Feynman, I think, once exclaimed with a smile something like, "there could be just ONE electron 'in' the universe, its just that its velocity is infinite."
emblemOFbeing 1 month ago
@emblemOFbeing Will do eOb. Nice to see you again.
conferencereport 1 month ago
chocolate statue on the moon. mmmmm
rriverstone1 1 month ago
I immortality really possible.
This point is unfalsifiable.
As any study to measure immortality would never reach a conclusion.
Therefore immortality is possible or impossible, without clear distinction.
republicofsandles 1 month ago
@republicofsandles Immortality is inevitable. Video to follow.
;)
conferencereport 1 month ago
very thoughtful video. I used to worry about there being parrallel universes because i realised in one i would be leading a truly wretched life. Then of course I realised that if parallel universes did exist in another I'd be leadingt a truly fantastic life and it'd all cancel each other out I suppose.
orbitalraindrops 1 month ago
I sometimes think that the version of the multiverse theory you discuss is driven by an intellectual hubris--one which assumes that anything conceivable must have a corresponding ontological status. What can be more arrogant than to effectively believe that if I can imagine it, it must exist.
DanaGarrett 1 month ago
ive studied physics for a while, and all professors i had have one thing in common: They like the standard model and quantum electrodynamics/quantum chromodynamics, but they joke about string theory. String theory and m-theory are dead, unless we observe supersymmetric particles. SUSY, super-symmetry, is still in the game, for now. But really, for our universe, to explain it as best as possible, its the standard model (higgs 2012/2013), general relativity, and quantum electrodynamics.
kurtilein3 1 month ago
Firefox can handle the file, even if its near 100 megabyte, so check out the ultra deep field from hubble. Its quite an experience to just view the file, zooming in and out, seeing all these galaxies. You dont want to miss it, its eye-opening. And its beautiful, it really is. What i think is that the universe got ripped apart relativistically, and in the distance we are looking at an event horizon. Just like a black hole event horizon, but we are inside.
kurtilein3 1 month ago
... So if the universe initially, at some stage, expanded faster than the speed of light, what would we see? When looking into the distance, we would also be looking into the past (true). There would be a boundary, anything moving away from us faster than the speed of light is unobservable. Redshift. What do you see in the "ultra-deep field"? Download it and look at it, 100 megabyte jpeg, when i look at it i see a relativistic event horizon. The boundaries of it.
Best Regards
kurtilein3 1 month ago
... second comment
I think there is maybe a multiverse, and that is because the big bang expanded so damn fast in its early stages. But that has nothing to do with these misinterpretations of quantum mechanics, no, its following from general relativity. In the very far distance, we see very old galaxies. But what if the expansion of the universe was faster than the speed of light? (end of comment one on this, need a second comment)
kurtilein3 1 month ago
"anything that can happen will happen" <--- I dont think so. Quantum mechanics is a bit strange, but all the strangeness of quantum mechanics goes away if you redefine time: The present time is when wave functions exist. Once wave functions collapse, it turns into past time. DONE. Just redefine time: Wave functions exist in present time, and only in present time. The collapse of these possibilities into one reality is the boundary between present and past. Think about it.
kurtilein3 1 month ago
It is an interesting question. I think determining the boundary conditions for the amount of possibilities is something so incredibly difficult that we may never be able to know. Unfortunately this would relegate my statements forever to the realm of philosophy rather than specifying more deeply into science, but that's the fun of the game.
theskepticalheretic 1 month ago
I don't know if multiple universes are real, we'll probably never find out. But who cares, there's so much mystery in our own universe that it boggles the mind. Sorry to turn this into a talk about drugs, but I always remember that my experience on dmt is like being in a different universe. You feel like solving mysteries, here, solve this one....Why, oh why, does all this exist?
HigherPlanes 1 month ago
@HigherPlanes
"Why, oh why, does all this exist?"
...because that's its nature, it can do no other than to exist...probably not a very satisfying answer, but that's all I've got.:)
the drug experience - since the subject and object are inseparable, we can't discount the subjective and experiential states, as some rationalists are too quick to do.
I experienced timelessness/eternity whilst experimented with LSD in my youth. Past, present and future completely fell away...
carmel1119 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@carmel1119
plus, Einstein will back me on the fact that time is an illusion. A blatant appeal to authority, I know. :)
carmel1119 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@carmel1119 Time is certainly an illusion ..just as we are and everything else is. Objectively, there is emptiness, neutrality, but inside the illusion, everything is real and exists eternally.
blackcrow6667 1 month ago
@blackcrow6667
"emptiness" ...isn't the whole "truth", but I know what you mean by that. There are a million roads to nowhere...or rather an infinite number...
"illusion"...yes, everything exists, but not in the the way we *think* it does...
carmel1119 4 weeks ago
@carmel1119 Emptiness as neutrality and voidness, being everything and nothing as perfect stillness. Might there be consciousness at the center? Possibly.
blackcrow6667 4 weeks ago
I think that if only one cognition is available pertaining to one universe at a time, then we have to do our best in thinking that this is the only one that exists. And even if we're wrong, then we've done the best we could with what's available to our senses. But i'm not exactly as well read as some of the others here concerning multiple realities.
gary12211 1 month ago
Gary wants there to be only one planet where life exists so that ending life seems a realistic goal. Your video coincides with that fantasy.
gratex 1 month ago
Hypothetically, a being from another universe could find ours as equally as impossible to imagine. "Planets go AROUND stars?! That's just retarded!"
Maybe trying to imagine an infinite plane of universes is simply too tiresome for a human mind to do; perhaps its one of those things we know *of*, but cannot hope to ever really understand.
niriop 1 month ago
That's so weird, I was thinking about this today. Because in the TV show Fringe, there are two universes. There is another you in the other universe but they're different based on the choices they've made. I was thinking about the major choices that I've made in my life and that my life would look very different if I'd have made the opposite choices. Not good or bad, just different.
canucks117 1 month ago
would 'determinism is true' itself be a contingent truth? if so, by defininition, there would a world according to which determinism is false. similarly there would also be a world according to which inteterminism is false. is it obvious which subset 'this world' falls into? plus any alternative world need not necessarily be concrete.
SouthSaturnDelta213 1 month ago
Determinism requires complete knowledge, which is fundamentally impossible (thank you herr Gödel). The only way reality could be completely understood is from "outside" reality and that is an impossible position to be in. The "number" of Universes doesn't change that.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
CR are you sure that just because there may be impossible universes, that necessarily means there can't be an infinite number of universes? Im not sure, infinity boggles my mind.
SatiricalStewie 1 month ago
@SatiricalStewie The fact that some universes might be prohibited does not prevent the number of universes from being infinite. For example, you can still have an infinite number of integers even if you ignore all decimals.
XamericanX 1 month ago
@XamericanX yeah that was what I had in mind, I had in mind the idea of subtracting from infinity, but I think your description is better. But infinity is a tricky thing!
SatiricalStewie 1 month ago
@SatiricalStewie Yes, it is tricky indeed. There are a number of different kinds of infinities as well, some of which are called countable and others are uncountable. The notion of subtraction does not apply in uncountable infinities.
XamericanX 1 month ago
@XamericanX woaaah, maybe you should do a video about this, maybe mention some monkeys, that seems to make infinity a little easier to understand.
SatiricalStewie 1 month ago
Science has yet to prove that is are other universes. Speculation is fun to do now and then. I used to think I could be in the lottery ticket winner universe...
1umbnonearth 1 month ago
Multiple realities or one, both ideas seem equally possible to me. I think it's nearly impossible to determine something like that, especially without any apparent experience thereof.
tonyfalca 1 month ago
I think for the many worlds theory to make any sense it needs to be indeterministic, as a cause cannot be the same cause for two different effects (a cause cannot be the cause for effect A over effect B, and at the same time the cause for effect B over effect A). For something to be pushed to "another possibility" that would require an acausal event somewhere along the way.
trick0171 1 month ago
hahaha... Very well put :)
amabodei 1 month ago
What "can" happen does happen, the key word being "can." if it's not possible for the laws of physics to be different in another universe than that would limit what "can" happen.
But, the only property "infinity" could be said to have is no limitations.
WilliamPbrane 1 month ago
this feels like gettin into 'too big for the human brain to comprehend' type problems. i like it.
SkidRowRadio 1 month ago
What "The Grand Design" book says. Not only is it that everything that could happen will happen in some universe, but every history that could be our history will be our history. That shit was mindfuck to me, but that is what quantum interpretation always is... mindfuck.
Censeo 1 month ago
In other words, all the quantum events from the beginning of time, which would lead to the exact state of this present, will be one of our many histories. So, we will not just have one history.
Censeo 1 month ago
Interesting I was just watching a video on parallel universes occurring at the same time. I need to go think now lol..
itzmarko1 1 month ago
It's all a mistake by the human mind due to living on the surface of the earth. There is no "number of events" other than the one we quantify to create order out of chaos. It's also necessary to name and number events when communicating between minds. In reality there's only a big continuum which can be subdivided into what looks like repeatable patterns or events. it's impossible to take an event out or remover it out of the continuum without ripping reality apart.
aNdYmAtTeR 1 month ago
Either that or they have all been played.
MsMrNoface 1 month ago
Maybe only 1 thing can happen... To the best of our senses, only 1 thing did.
WorthlessLoser8 1 month ago
Some inevitabilites that come out of infinity maths are really, really mind-blowing ... in possibly a very real sence; Kantor drove himself mad trying to see 'into the mind of god' ... You can see the G-word might have a valid position in this inherently heirachical model, but human notions of such are woefully lacking and there's a real risk of becoming mentally harmed by insiting on the precise language of maths to define something that is and will always be, somewhere somehow, an enigma?
fuckoverload 1 month ago
Is there an univers when animals digest rock?
jfeuiebf 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jfeuiebf 'Is there an univers when animals digest rock?'
Quantum mechanics says that if you keep designing an infinite number of times, then that, however improbable, will exist within a universe with rules baffling to us but which make such realities possible.
As mad as it sounds, it is /inevitable/ -- and physicists embracing the mathematics of infinites (it droke Kantor mad) is in agreement about the phenomenol, and perhaps sometimes rather creepy, implications.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
all those universes are probably different stages of time of this universe; however I dont think there can bea universe which has different fundamentals such as atoms.
Ioganstone 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ioganstone 'all those universes are probably different stages of time of this universe;'
Yes. And outside of this /perception/ (a slice of experience and probable /movements/), it must agree that this universe as we know it is neigther at the begniing, end or middle of such an event, since it can't have one. It is infinity. in some hard to imagine sense, it is like one angle of infinitely fine degree through a multidemensional fractal. This is empirically, 100% factually accurate.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
I can't see how we could ever prove an infinity of anything, but we could deal with numbers so large that they are effectively infinite to us. But even considering an infinite number of universes, I don't think that that should mean that every combination of possibilities that the human mind can conceive need be possible. In the universes that support life, I think those universes are so formed as to have limits, or they wouldn't be life supporting. Perhaps only human imagination is infinite.
DaithiDublin 1 month ago
@DaithiDublin 'Perhaps only human imagination is infinite.'
in which case, we must have created ourselves. Within this infinity sequence. Which is within an infine number of other infinite 'spaces'. It's hard to even find the language to properly convery the concept. Universe is our description of inevitable conditions within infinities, the inevitability required for us to be able to have this conversation about what, fundamentally, that means. It' so remote -- yet inevitable.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
@fuckoverload 'It's hard to even find the language to properly convery the concept'
I think the bubble or foam visual is the best, providing you don't then try to envision a container! But as for inevitability, I think the very idea of infinity argues against that. Say there *was* a universe somewhere exactly mirroring ours except the colour spectrum is reversed, it may be conceptually inevitable, but would we ever find it to prove that fact? Is inevitability only a potential factor?
DaithiDublin 1 month ago
@DaithiDublin 'Is inevitability only a potential factor?'
As in there must be a temporal property to it. For existence itself to be possible? Otherwise it truly is a nothing? Which clearly it isn't. Unless, in some unfathomable sense, we're all figments of our own imaginations which don't really 'exist' in any definable way. It's an interesting thought. I'd have to chew on it. I'm really not certain. But logically I think it was, in a sense, inevitable I'd have these thoughts.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
@fuckoverload No, I'm picking up on what Fred said here, about having to admit at some point that some things just aren't possible. I agree with that. Any universe that might exist will still have physical laws. And a universe where we all float 4" off the ground is not possible, in my mind, because such a universe could not support life. If biological molecules are floating around, how do they clump together to begin evolving? Infinite variations don't mean infinite possibilities.
DaithiDublin 1 month ago
@DaithiDublin 'And a universe [...] 4" off the ground is not possible, in my mind,'
In your mind ... I accept. Something interesting happens when you subtract infinites from one another. The answer can be /any/ finite number. If 'reality' building takes infinite mathematical language sequencing, it stands to reason infinities are going to be subtracted from one another and produce restrictive versions of a larger infinity built of more combinations. 'Universe' is just one product.
fuckoverload 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@fuckoverload Yeah, I'm gonna stick with this universe it's much easier to understand. And it's got my favourite stuff in it!
DaithiDublin 1 month ago
@DaithiDublin It's inevitable that a version of you in some sense will emerge in another life-supporting reality that's within the bounds of your imagination. So there's really no point stressing about even death. In its purest form of nothing, it seems only to be what, if added up, the universe itself is made from. And yes, that really is true.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
@fuckoverload Just jumping in here. I think in our guts we all know that there is just one universe. And it's less than entirely awesome. Now do your damned laundry and clean the dishes and stop fantasizing about damned excuses.
strontiumcrypt 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@strontiumcrypt 'Just jumping in here. I think in our guts we all know that there is just one universe. And it's less than entirely awesome. Now do your damned laundry and clean the dishes and stop fantasizing about damned excuses.'
Gut feelings are not of the same value as logical deductions. It's inevitable that some are going to be prejudiced to see it the way you say. But i's a restrictive vision and inherently both logical and illogical. By its improbability of existence it has to be ...
fuckoverload 1 month ago
@strontiumcrypt ... some kind of infinity 'experience'. The size of the numbers needed to describe the odds are somehow incomprehensibly gigantic yet still make-ever-much-biggerable. A googleplex can't be written using each atom of the universe as a number. Graham's number is vastly, vastly, vastly bigger that googleplexes raised to the power of googleplexes. These are also conceptially both vast and tiny at the same time, depending on the frame of reference within an infinite sequence.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
@DaithiDublin 'I can't see how we could ever prove an infinity of anything'
But it is mathematically proven, because everything about you, fundamentally, is maths working, from your thoughts to your movement of matter. The number of sequence runs needed to define a universe (black hole mathematics, quantum theory) is beyond imagining, let alone comprehension. But somehow you know that it can still be raised to the power of itself. each iteration becoming vaster still. Endlessly.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
@DaithiDublin Another way of putting it would be: Considering the odds of purely randomly building a universe from an unknowable 'genesis' pile of a mathematics, isn't the /only/ feasible explanation that the odds are so astonomically high and, if infinity is a type of forever that has size (very hard to grasp), us existing /most highly probably/ was inevitable, since forever will make the unimaginable definite ... inevitably.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
@DaithiDublin 'I can't see how we could ever prove an infinity of anything'
But it is mathematically proven, because everything about you, fundamentally, is maths working, from your thoughts to your movement of matter. The number of sequence runs needed to define a universe (black hole mathematics, quantum theory) is beyond imagining, let alone comprehension. But somehow you know that it can still be raised to the power of itself. each iteration becomes vaster still. Endlessly.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
There could be just one universe, we don't know that the multiple universe theory is true.
BeardedBill86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeardedBill86 'fuckoverload And where did that really smart thing come from?'
From infinite reiterations of possibility, of course. It will inevitably occur an infinite number of times, becoming infinitely more complex with each of the infinite re-iterations. When particular types of sentience emerge, they will inevitably grow in understanding and advance at a logathimic rate ... forever. Different sized infinites. Hard to get your head around, isn't it? But it /has/ to be tru
fuckoverload 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeardedBill86 'There could be just one universe, we don't know that the multiple universe theory is true.'
It has to be both true and not true, since both can exist and inevitably will.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fuckoverload 'It has to be both true and not true, since both can exist and inevitably will.'
It just depends which size infinity you're looking at.
This is all mathematically impeccable, you know.
Think about what it's saying. It /is/ quite hard to get your head around, but there really is no other explanation for existence itself, because infinity is inevitability. ACAI.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
@BeardedBill86 True. I guess there must be either one universe, or a specific number of universes, or an infinite number of universes (whatever that means). All of these options seem pretty gobsmacking to me. Kind of like what Arthur C Clarke said about extra-terrestrial life, 'either we are alone in the universe or we're not, and both conditions are equally amazing'.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport They certainly have interesting implications indeed.
BeardedBill86 1 month ago
... It's the only rational explanation I can think of for why this giant mystery place came into existence. Something maybe really smart decided to foster it. Maybe.
fuckoverload 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@fuckoverload And where did that really smart thing come from?
BeardedBill86 1 month ago
This is where mathematics comes in handy. We know that it isn't possible for there to be universes where space is homogeneous and momentum isn't conserved; or where space is isotropic and angular momentum isn't conserved; or where time is homogeneous and energy isn't conserved; or where matter particles don't interact with each other via a gauge force; or where the charges associated with the gauge forces aren't conserved. All this thanks to Noether's Theorem and the Gauge Principle.
MrRobotoToo 1 month ago
@MrRobotoToo Yes. But since it is possible for each of those conditions /not/ to be fulfilled, it will inevitably exist if the fabric of reality itself is infinity. It is beyond our understanding what such a realm would be like, perhaps because sentience itself wouldn't be possible there. Who knows?
fuckoverload 1 month ago
... So the case is made that infinity is best thought of as a kind of physics buider. The will be things other than physics that we can't even imagine that it will build. It is inevitable. It is inevitable there will be sentiences much smarter than the human who will be able to jog through time, make predictions, and play the whole thing like a game, some trying to kill you and some not.
Er ... or something like that. Isn't Gary just the old joy bundle these days? LOL. ACAI.
fuckoverload 1 month ago
Impossible? Obviously you haven't watched "Sliders"...
FriendOregon 1 month ago
@FriendOregon I haven't. I don't know what it is, sorry.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport Its a TV show from the 90s where these guys keep sliding into alternative universes trying to get home. Kinda like quantum leap but instead of through time its through alternative universes.
I watched a whole load of it. Its was full of all sorts of alternative plots and crazy universes. Loved it!
FriendOregon 1 month ago
So what does the previous say about our situation now? Is it predetermined? In a sense, that /has/ to be true ... but I prefer the tighter description 'inevitable'. However, down at the subatomic scale, bits of 'stuff' actually teleport, particle pairs transmit information between one another instantaneously, 'stuff' chaotically / maybe randomly comes into and winks out of our Frame of Perception, even (controversially) possibly breaks cause and effect. Our minds are electron flows. So ...
fuckoverload 1 month ago
Universes are infinite. I can't put it better than that, only add more words of explanation. Infinities are endless containers; mathematicians who deny them are avoiding a whole branch of philosophical thinking that the mathematics demands. Within an infinity what we call universes are inevitable, as is everything that a sentience can imagine. /Inevitable/, no matter how improbable. The implications of what self-evidently /has/ to be an Absolute Truth are staggering. watch?v=KNJgXbAFmmQ
fuckoverload 1 month ago
Surely, it must be infinite?
HailToMyself 1 month ago
@HailToMyself Which infinite?
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport 'Which infinite?'
There are an infinite number of combinations. Some combinations clearly won't produce what we'd call sentience, with functions like long-term reasoning / event and emotion and calculation and association memory, phsyical environment mapping ... they might be the more exotic /patterns / time.domain.software / etc. Classifications, obviously. That might be more rare, but obviously within infinity it will logically occur an infinite number of times...
fuckoverload 1 month ago
@fuckoverload Is there a universe in which everything suddenly poofs into existence out of nothing? If not then then the number of universes is constrained, presumably by the laws of physics. I'm curious as to how tightly that constraint operates; is it ultimately contrained to the singular.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport I think the constraint is that we experience it in a particulary tiny slice of something like time. But it's an infinitely re-iterating machine, so everything -- no matter how bnizarre -- will /inevitably/ exist for the amount of time it's viable and remains a sequence of maths that can be self-aware and maintain its existence. It will re-iterate infinitely, but you can see sizes within the infinities. Everyting truly, ultimately, must be inevitable...
fuckoverload 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@conferencereport "I'm curious as to how tightly that constraint operates" This is wrapped up in the cosmological constant and gauge principle..If the universe expands too quickly then matter would just blow apart, too slowly and matter wouldn't even exist..Everything just has to be right, Planck's constant, gravitational force G, etc..
army2k08 1 month ago
I think the answer is 17, but in another possible universe that number is 42. And which of those universes you collapse into is determined by chance. So basically you are unlucky to not live in the universe where a chocolate statue of you exists on the moon. And yes you had no choice which universe you collapse into every moment, but that's precisely why you might be free. On the cosmic irony.
socrates856 1 month ago
@socrates856 Have you read Robert Anton Wilson's 'Shroedingers Cat' trilogy? He plays a lot of those kind of parallel universes games.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport I gave those as a present to someone some time ago, but I must admit I haven't read them myself. My luck, in another universe I have read them and would be telling you a whole range of possible opinions about them.
socrates856 1 month ago
@socrates856 In the universe next door we probably agree that they're pretty good, but the sexual politics are a bit dated.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport I've never read him, do you recommend him? I somehow ended up with a fascinating. curious audio file on my iPod years ago from someone I couldn't place. He sounded like Carl Sagan to my ears, but was talking about Shinran Buddhism, and the concept of Namu Amida Butsu. I only recently found out it was Wilson. I love his voice, and I imagine I couldn't help but read him in that voice. Which might take a while...
DaithiDublin 1 month ago