by Thought I'd share for your enjoyment and input/comment...
OP wrote:Where the universe is continually expanding and collapsing, over and over again. You will not only be reconstructed, you are currently a reconstruction of your previous self. In terms of probability, if you have an infinite set, it is not only completely logical, it is inevitable.
... I'm not expecting this to go over well, but I thought it could spark some cool conversation.
Skeptical_Berserker wrote:no proof this is real so any discussion on it is pure fiction...
I think Batman is way cooler than Spider Man and I have proof!
OP wrote:What part don't you like, the math, or the physics?
These are currently held academic concepts, so please elaborate, or accept that you don't understand what we're discussing.
Skeptical_Berserker wrote:>Where the universe is continually expanding and collapsing, over and over again
This is one theory, not the only one, and it’s not proven as true
>You will not only be reconstructed, you are currently a reconstruction of your previous self
Mythical BS
>In terms of probability, if you have an infinite set, it is not only completely logical, it is inevitable.
I think you need to do some more study in probability theory
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1245/1/fim.pdf
>I'm not expecting this to go over well, but I thought it could spark some cool conversation.
Why don’t you think Batman is cool? What’s wrong with you?
OP wrote:>Where the universe is continually expanding and collapsing, over and over again This is one theory, not the only one, and it’s not proven as true
True, this holds true in consideration of the multiverse theory as well, and just like evolution hasn't been proven to be true, it is accepted as a strong possibility, unless of course, you have a better idea that you can support.
>You will not only be reconstructed, you are currently a reconstruction of your previous self Mythical BS
It's called number theory.
>I think you need to do some more study in probability theory.
I'm writing a book on probability, but please go on.
Skeptical_Berserker wrote:>True, this holds true in consideration of the multiverse theory as well, and just like evolution hasn't been proven to be true, it is accepted as a strong possibility, unless of course, you have a better idea that you can support.
Evolution has pretty much been proven true, and is used daily in medicine.
Multiverse is a theory that even expanding/collapsing physicist may or may not support. It has less discoverable evidence supporting it than other theories.
What about the theory that our universe is a living being and spawns (birth) other universes through black-holes? That’s a real theory in physics. Why aren’t you talking about that one?
>It's called number theory
That doesn’t apply to a personage of you. The “you” being created over and over again is mythical BS.
>I'm writing a book on probability, but please go on.
Appeal to authority, logical fallacy. The fact that you’re writing a book doesn’t mean you know what the hell you’re talking about
You ignored the fact that Batman is cooler than Spider Man. That must mean you agree.
OP wrote:>What about the theory that our universe is a living being and spawns (birth) other universes through black-holes? That’s a real theory in physics. Why aren’t you talking about that one?
The concept still holds.
>Appeal to authority, logical fallacy. The fact that you’re writing a book doesn’t mean you know what the hell you’re talking about
Just because something takes the structure of a fallacy, does not make it fallacious, philosophy 101. Ignoring this aspect completely, the notion of an infinite set repeating itself as a mathematical inevitability without the parameter of time is mathematically proven.
Further, my entire point only makes one assumption, time does not exist, which is also accepted among many physicists. Nothing I've said hasn't already been discussed, and isn't entirely possible, and in certain frameworks, probable as a possibility.
And I ignored the fact that Batman is cooler than Spider Man because duh.
Skeptical_Berserker wrote:>Just because something takes the structure of a fallacy, does not make it fallacious
Using the fact you are writing a book as proof of your authority is in itself a fallacy – an appeal to authority. If you were to list your credentials and a reason to proclaim why you are right that, too, would be the same.
But yes, let’s move on past that.
>the notion of an infinite set repeating itself as a mathematical inevitability without the parameter of time is mathematically proven.
Citation please
>Further, my entire point only makes one assumption, time does not exist, which is also accepted among many physicists. Nothing I've said hasn't already been discussed, and isn't entirely possible and in certain frameworks probable as a possibility.
The two theories you presented, and the others that exist and are also currently valid, are all well and good. The focus, I think this entire discussion is going to boil down to, is the “mythical BS” part.
The key part here is “You will not only be reconstructed, you are currently a reconstruction of your previous self”. That, is what I am focused on as the mythical BS part. That the You is a repeat of a previous You and there will be a repeat of the You in the future.
Now, we are made from atoms that stars have produced and our bodies churn through atoms as we live. So (in essence) the components that make us up do change with regularity. But, that is not the You. The notion that in this Universes’ previously existing (using the collapse/expand – the Big Bounce theory) another You existed is a stretch based on these.
>And I ignored the fact that Batman is cooler than Spider Man because duh.
Ah, good, you are a man of knowledge and reason, we can proceed.
OP wrote:>the notion of an infinite set repeating itself as a mathematical inevitability without the parameter of time is mathematically proven. Citation please
This is just basic probability. Without time as a condition, the set continues indefinitely.
Consider then, if my assumption that time does not exist is true. Then in fact the Universe always has been and always will be. It is no logical leap then to extrapolate that all mathematical possibilities not only have come to be in the past, but will again. Within that set of possibilities, I've assumed I have a probability of something slightly larger than zero. In that sense, the probability that I've already been, and will be again holds true. Unless of course we have a soul, but you wouldn't argue that would you?
Skeptical_Berserker wrote:>the notion of an infinite set repeating itself as a mathematical inevitability without the parameter of time is mathematically proven.
still need a citation
>This is just basic probability. Without time as a condition, the set continues indefinitely.
Infinite sets means no repetition....
>Unless of course we have a soul, but you wouldn't argue that would you?
Only if you argue it true then I'll have to ask for a citation on that too
OP wrote:>Infinite set means no repetition.
That's not what infinite set means. Infinite set means, all possible sets, but is not limited to n. In other words, it's dynamic. This is where the question, "Does an infinite set contain itself" is derived from. Take for example the set [1,1,2,4,1,1,5,7], let's pretend this set represents infinity (I realize this is very imperfect, but for arguments sake). If a set is defined as 2 or more numbers, we define Z as a set, and Y represents infinity or the set itself, then this set can be defined as Y{Z!-1}. This set alone contains two sets of [1,1], which are in their own respect, indistinguishable from one another. Now let's pretend this set represents our modern understanding of physics. The set that we just defined requires a function of time (or some form of iteration) to define where this set starts and where it stops. This argument postulates that it is possible no such variable for time actually exists, in which case, this set will continue forever. Under these conditions, this set, even if continually re-arranged, will inevitably replicate itself.
Does this make sense?
