In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

How should we think about weird things?

In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #1  Postby bigtim » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:31 am

This is a Reddit conversation I'm having with someone on the atheist forum.  

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 :-P


>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?
~
BigTim
"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

Thanks from:
vanderpoel
User avatar
bigtim
Skeptical Berserker
Perpetual Poster
 
Posts: 4075
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:04 pm
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #2  Postby fromthehills » Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:18 am

If I were to kick an ant pile, then destroy all the ants, another ant pile isn't going to show that the ants I destroyed were the exact same ants that now created the other ant pile.
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
 

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #3  Postby xouper » Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:50 am

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.

His argument about infinite sets is not correct. An infinite sequence is not required to "repeat" itself. His result is not at all inevitable. This is basic undergraduate number theory.

See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liouville_number#Liouville_constant

Thanks from:
bigtim
xouper
Inactive
 

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #4  Postby bigtim » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:07 am

xouper wrote:
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.

His argument about infinite sets is not correct. An infinite sequence is not required to "repeat" itself. His result is not at all inevitable. This is basic undergraduate number theory.

See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liouville_number#Liouville_constant


That's what I thought... but I'll admit I don't live that math anymore...
~
BigTim
"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."
User avatar
bigtim
Skeptical Berserker
Perpetual Poster
 
Posts: 4075
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:04 pm
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #5  Postby xouper » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:25 am

In case anyone is interested, here is a further deconstruction of his argument:

OP wrote:Infinite set means, all possible sets, but is not limited to n.

That's not what the term "infinite set" means.

OP wrote:Take for example the set [1,1,2,4,1,1,5,7],

That is not a "set". It is a sequence.

For the remainder of his argument, let's replace the faulty jargon with correct jargon.

OP wrote:let's pretend this sequence represents infinity (I realize this is very imperfect, but for arguments sake).

Not only it imperfect, it is meaningless.

A sequence can have the property of infinite length, but infinity itself cannot be represented as a sequence.

OP wrote: If a sequence is defined as 2 or more numbers, we define Z as a sequence,

OK, so far. Z is a sequence of two numbers.

OP wrote:and Y represents infinity

Utter gibberish. What does the sequence Y look like?

OP wrote:or the sequence itself,

OK, here Y is given to be another name for the sequence Z.

OP wrote:then this sequence can be defined as Y{Z!-1}. This sequence alone contains two sequences of [1,1], which are in their own respect, indistinguishable from one another.

If what he is trying to do is define an infinite recursive sequence that contains repeated bits of itself, that is certainly doable. However, this does not mean that all infinite sequences have that property.

OP wrote:Now let's pretend this sequence represents our modern understanding of physics.

We can for the sake of argument pretend this. However, the cyclic model of the universe does not require this particular pretension.

OP wrote:Does this make sense?

Nope. Especially not to a mathematician.

Based on the above errors, I would not accept him as an authority on anything mathematical.

Thanks from:
bigtim, fromthehills, vanderpoel
xouper
Inactive
 

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #6  Postby bigtim » Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:28 am

But he's writing a book on probability....  

heh..heh...

BTW Xouper... You do rock.
~
BigTim
"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."
User avatar
bigtim
Skeptical Berserker
Perpetual Poster
 
Posts: 4075
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:04 pm
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #7  Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:35 pm

Kinda sad.

The topic has possibilities for genuine intelligent discussion and speculation.  But your debate opponent has reduced it to pseudo-religious bulldust.

There is a lot of interesting discussion in the science community about the likelihood that we live in a multi-verse.  String theory predicts E500 universes (which may or may not mean anything).     If so, though, they are not repeating universes.  Instead, each universe will be different from every other.   So there is no indication that any of us will ever be repeated.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Super Skeptic
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5477
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #8  Postby xouper » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:45 pm

As I understand it, the opening post is talking about the cyclic model of the universe, not a parallel model multiverse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
xouper
Inactive
 

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #9  Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:07 pm

Sure.

But that model is only one of many.
I was suggesting that a better discussion might be had if focused on reality rather than pseudo-religion.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Super Skeptic
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5477
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #10  Postby xouper » Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:36 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Sure. But that model is only one of many.

Agreed. However, I only attempted to deconstruct the one being discussed in the OP.
xouper
Inactive
 

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #11  Postby Major Malfunction » Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:35 am

In an infinite Universe it's potentially possible that if you travel far enough in any direction you'll eventually bump into yourself coming the other way. You don't need a multiverse.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Hyphenator
Has More Than 9K Posts
 
Posts: 9593
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 am

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #12  Postby Pamam55 » Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:23 pm

There are an infinite amount of "universes"  all around us as well as an infinite amount of possibilities.  The human eye can only see about 1/100th of what is actually around us
Pamam55
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:23 am

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #13  Postby Kilgore Trout » Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:49 pm

Pamam55 wrote:There are an infinite amount of "universes"  all around us as well as an infinite amount of possibilities.  The human eye can only see about 1/100th of what is actually around us



Based on previous posts I assume you can see the other 99/100ths. Please tell me how this is done. Open my eyes.
The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest.
User avatar
Kilgore Trout
Poster
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 12:46 am

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #14  Postby Pamam55 » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:10 am

Kilgore Trout wrote:
Pamam55 wrote:There are an infinite amount of "universes"  all around us as well as an infinite amount of possibilities.  The human eye can only see about 1/100th of what is actually around us



Based on previous posts I assume you can see the other 99/100ths. Please tell me how this is done. Open my eyes.


No, I can't...however, I can see about 1% more than 99.999% of lemmings on this rock...
Pamam55
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:23 am

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #15  Postby Gord » Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:46 am

Pamam55 wrote:There are an infinite amount of "universes"  all around us as well as an infinite amount of possibilities.

No there aren't.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Maybe I'm over estimating the intellijens uv the averaj american" -- JO 753

Thanks from:
fromthehills
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19716
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #16  Postby Kilgore Trout » Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:39 pm

Gord wrote:
Pamam55 wrote:There are an infinite amount of "universes"  all around us as well as an infinite amount of possibilities.

No there aren't.


I'll answer for Pam.

Yes there are.
The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest.

Thanks from:
Austin Harper
User avatar
Kilgore Trout
Poster
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 12:46 am

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #17  Postby Kilgore Trout » Sun Jun 17, 2012 2:45 pm

Pamam55 wrote:
Kilgore Trout wrote:
Pamam55 wrote:There are an infinite amount of "universes"  all around us as well as an infinite amount of possibilities.  The human eye can only see about 1/100th of what is actually around us



Based on previous posts I assume you can see the other 99/100ths. Please tell me how this is done. Open my eyes.


No, I can't...however, I can see about 1% more than 99.999% of lemmings on this rock...


Please let us in on what this 1% is? I'm getting the feeling that all you know that we don't (the 1%) is that you have to constantly reenforce your image of superiority. I say image because I'm sure you don't really feel superior. I superior being doesn't need to constantly tell the inferior beings how inferior they are. I can't remember the last time I mocked my dog because he can't read.

The only one you're trying to convince of anything is yourself. Please think about this. I'm sorry you're in so much pain.
The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest.

Thanks from:
scrmbldggs
User avatar
Kilgore Trout
Poster
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 12:46 am

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #18  Postby Gord » Sun Jun 17, 2012 4:47 pm

Kilgore Trout wrote:I'll answer for Pam.

Might as well.  Ain't like this was going anywhere.

Yes there are.

No there aren't.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Maybe I'm over estimating the intellijens uv the averaj american" -- JO 753
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19716
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #19  Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:07 pm

To Kilgour and Gord

On the "Yes there are.  No there ain't" argument.

Ideas of a multiverse are merely ideas at this stage.   Whether there are many universes is something we still do not know.  Even if there are, just how many would still be an open question.

Let's admit to our mutual ignorance on this.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Super Skeptic
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5477
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #20  Postby fromthehills » Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:31 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:To Kilgour and Gord

On the "Yes there are.  No there ain't" argument.

Ideas of a multiverse are merely ideas at this stage.   Whether there are many universes is something we still do not know.  Even if there are, just how many would still be an open question.

Let's admit to our mutual ignorance on this.



Very unique approach, Lance.
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
 

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #21  Postby Gord » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:01 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Let's admit to our mutual ignorance on this.

No there isn't. :P
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Maybe I'm over estimating the intellijens uv the averaj american" -- JO 753
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19716
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #22  Postby Major Malfunction » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:31 am

Gord wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Let's admit to our mutual ignorance on this.

No there isn't. :P

I agree.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Hyphenator
Has More Than 9K Posts
 
Posts: 9593
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 7:20 am

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #23  Postby Austin Harper » Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:39 pm

If you are interested in real multiverse theories, Neil Denny just had a good interview on the Little Atoms Road Trip series with Sean Carroll from Caltech. (Interview link)
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.
Air Capital Skeptics, hosts of the Skeptics of Oz conference
User avatar
Austin Harper
Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Persistent Poster
 
Posts: 3963
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:22 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #24  Postby Harte » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:20 am

bigtim wrote:
xouper wrote: His argument about infinite sets is not correct. An infinite sequence is not required to "repeat" itself. His result is not at all inevitable. This is basic undergraduate number theory.

See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liouville_number#Liouville_constant


That's what I thought... but I'll admit I don't live that math anymore...

You don't need to because he's wrong on even a more basic and easily understood level.
Your adversary stated:
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.

That's a big old hairy line of crap. But he's right - it's no logical leap.  Mainly because it's not only not logical, it's demonstrably false.

An infinite set contains an infinite number of elements.  That's all.  It doesn't contain every possible element (unless it's the set of all possible elements.)

The whole numbers constitute an infinite set.  However, you won't find the number 1/2 in that set.

Ergo, an infinite set need not contain all possible elements to be infinite.

For dessert, anyone can see that an infinite set certainly doesn't repeat.  If it did, it wouldn't be infinite.

So the idea of being "reconstituted" over and over, which (it appears) is dependant on the idea that somehow an infinite set will run out of possibilities and have to repeat itself to "stay infinite," is really just evidence of his weak-mindedness and his embarassingly poor grasp of elementary ideas in set theory.

Harte
The skeptic, being a lover of his kind, desires to cure by speech, as best he can, the self-conceit and rashness of the dogmatists.
Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of PyrrhonismHello!

Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so.
Bertrand Russell

Thanks from:
Matthew Ellard
User avatar
Harte
Poster
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Memphis Tennessee

Re: In a multi-verse of infinite possibilities.

Post #25  Postby busterggi » Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:13 pm

User avatar
busterggi
General Weirdness
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:36 pm
Location: New Britain, CT



Return to Skepticism and Critical Thinking

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

MIB
MIB
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site! MIB