This is actually a huge pet peeve of mine. Just because there are an infinite number of possibilities doesn’t mean anything is possible
Let’s investigate the list of natural numbers. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. It stretches on for infinity, but nowhere in this infinite set will you find the number 2.5. Or negative 1. Or countless other examples.
Next let’s consider a warehouse with an infinite number of CDs, each burned with a copy of the Donkey Kong Country soundtrack. Each of these discs are different. They have slight differences in the label, diameter, and flatness, due to manufacturing tolerances. They have different random bits that get flipped sometimes due to solar particle collision and quantum variation, which may eventually make different discs unreadable. They decay over the centuries at different rates, due to temperature and sun exposure differences in the warehouse (climate control for an infinite space is very expensive).
Each of these discs are, materially speaking, completely different from one another. But, from the perspective of our limited human perception, they are for the time being completely interchangeable. Whichever one you select, you will listen to and have the same experience.
This is by far the most likely scenario if we indeed live in a multiverse. An infinite number of earths, with an infinite number of you, lives filled with all the same mistakes and triumphs, all reading this comment together right now.
Edit: spelling
What blew my mind is that it hasn't been proven that pi contains an infinte number of ones, for instance. It's not out of the question that there is a decimal place where the last 1 appears and there are none from then on.
It's not really likely, but we simply don't know and it is possible. It sounds weird given how many decimals of pi we've calculated, until you realise we've literally calculated 0% of them.
Yeah! It’s a really beautiful thing to think about. And exciting to imagine we may one day see a mathematician who works out the truth
Yep! Pi might be a "Normal" irrational number, which is a really poorly named classification that basically means that the "random" arrangement of numbers in pi isn't weighted and so you'll end up with 1 in 10 digits being 1, and that that will be true for all bases. We're kind of at a point where we think Pi is "normal", but we can't prove it.
If it is "normal" though, then that means that you could find any arbitrary sequence of numbers inside of pi, somewhere. Meaning that in base 128, pi would contain the ascii sequence for every book ever written, every book that ever will be written, every book that could be written, the accurate date of your death, and anything else you could ever imagine. Again, that's not proven, but we think it's the case
Whatcha got in that pi? Everything...
From a mathematical standpoint you're right, but from the standpoint of application pi has an infinitesimal accuracy without going to 45 digits. At 3.1415926535, we're more accurate than the distance between 3 atoms.
I don't see how that's relevant. Plus your last sentence sounds like you're just repeating something you heard but forgot a part of it, because it makes no sense as it is.
The part they're misremembering is that if you used 39 digits of pi as pi (not 45), it would be enough to calculate the circumference of the observable universe with a forward error of less than the width of a hydrogen atom (not the distance between 3)
Whenever I think about the possibility of a Multiverse it just gets so unbelievably convoluted that I can't believe that that's how the Universe/Multiverse actually exists. Is the idea that every potential change in every atom or event in the Universe leads to all these other Universes, all co-existing, no matter how small & insignificant the differences? So we'd have a ridiculous number of Universes whose sole difference from ours is that a single atom behaved slightly differently in a rock out in the parking lot. Then multiply that by EVERY possible atom in the entire Universe, all behaving slightly differently.
That's just physical matter, what about conscious decisions made by living things? So in one Universe I filled my bowl of cereal with X oz of milk VS another universe where I filled it with X+1 oz of milk, and so on. All these micro-decisions that branch out into separate timelines, multiplied by the number of living entities in the Universe, every second of every day.
So are new Universes just constantly springing into existence at every moment in time, connected to every atom and every living thing, just brought about by tiny differences? I write some gobbledygook here: aksfhkashdf in one universe, adshfoasfdoajsidd in another, pooigjmasiodmfas in another, and so on. Multiple universes all suddenly springing into existence based on random key presses? Universes can't possibly be that "easy" to create can they, all that mass and energy, just poofed into existence, and it's constantly happening every second? Is mass, energy, and space just meaningless?
Or is it some other more basic set of differences describe the universe, just the starting conditions are different, but from there, each different Universe just proceeds as is, without multiple branching timelines? I'm not smart enough to understand any of it, it just quickly gets so incredibly convoluted and complicated for me to wrap my brain around.
There are a few possibilities:
All the universes existed from the start. Most just haven't diverged yet. At any given moment, there are an infinite number of completely identical universes.
The universes literally split, and some quirk of quantum mechanics makes this actually possible.
They aren't universes, they're timelines. All the universes are in quantum superposition with each other.
There aren't actually multiple universes. It's just acknowledgement of the infinite possibilities. (This is how I like to think of most quantum mechanics, tbh.)
CDs are optical storage, just plastic with tiny bumps. It's magnetic and solid state storage that can have bit flipping.
Ah, but you see, this example takes place in the universe where CDs are susceptible as well
I am five parallel universes ahead of you
I think a lot of people assume a multiverse works that way because popular fiction makes it look like it does. However popular fiction is using something more akin to an omniverse (idk if there is an actual agreed scientific definition for a collection of multiple multiverses so Im just using that).
Using your analogy with the donkey kong discs being different universes with slight alterations in the warehouse (multiverse). In an omniverse scenario that you see in popular fiction, next door you'd have another warehouse but instead of donkey kong discs it is mario discs, or maybe donkey kong plushies.
However again that's all speculative of if there even is a multiverse let alone something larger than that
due to the nature of infinity — a la monkeys and typewriters — you could have not only a single CD that due to a catastrophic series of errors is actually something completely different from a CD — but an infinite number of them.
Is it entirely beyond the realms of possibility that an infinitesimally small stroke of luck could create a sentient race of CD people? Except "small" doesn't make sense in infinity — "small" just means "a less common certainty"
An infinite series of random letters would of course contain every book, that’s definitionally true.
But infinity itself does not empower the whims of the imagination (indeed this is the entire point). Yes, it is definitely impossible for the warehouse to contain a sentient race of CD people. Polycarbonate plastic simply cannot exhibit any of the qualities of being alive under any circumstances
I know I'm nit picking here but that's the point of examining infinity, but wouldn't it be foolish to say "there are no examples of hydrogen gas becoming sentient under any circumstances!" because, well, we're both sentient decendants of a reaction between two or more hydrogen atoms.
Yes the conditions that led from hydrogen > helium > deuterium > ... > ... > ... single celled organisms > ... > ... primates > ... > ... humans are incredibly complicated and specific. But what if we applied the same complicated and specific process (or an infinite variation thereof) to the CD factory. Are you sure it's impossible? and worse yet - can you prove it?
Are you sure it’s impossible? and worse yet - can you prove it?
This is known as an argument from ignorance. I'm not sure how familiar you are with this terminology, so to be clear, I am not insulting you or calling you ignorant. But in summary, something is not true until proven otherwise.
The conditions inside the warehouse are not similar to the conditions of the early universe or the primordial soup. You need to demonstrate a mechanism for stable, non-reactive plastic to become sentient if you assert that it's indeed possible.
for one - it's an infinite warehouse, so the parts of it that are near stars, black holes, planets, moons and comets are destroyed, sucked in etc, creating several stable "rare-Earth" conditions at the Goldilocks distance from heat sources, and using the debris from collision follows the same basic principle of how life on Earth started, but with melted plastic from the burned cds instead of in water. Life - uh - finds a way.
The warehouse is more similar to SCP-3008, for property tax reasons
Natural numbers doesn't contain 2.5 because we define it so. Similarly all those CDs are practically the same because it's made in a factory designed to minimize the variance. Is there a similar strong will or intention in how a multiverse evolves?
It's an analogy, the specific case doesn't matter. It demonstrates that infinite does not mean literally everything, it's possible for some item to be missing from any particular infinite set. In a box of infinite apples you won't have an orange; in a box of infinite fruit you won't have a chicken; in an infinite multiverse you by definition won't have a universe which isn't part of that multiverse.
Ya, but OP was talking about what's the "most likely" scenario. Which I don't think the selected analogy demonstrated.
I suppose then you’d have been more satisfied with the example of an infinite number of grains of sand, each polished smooth and strewn across an infinite beach.
Or simply an infinite expanse of empty space, each with unique coordinates, yet unable to be differentiated in the absence of any reference.
The point being, infinity itself is a concept we defined a certain way. And no part of that definition mandates variation. People who hear “infinity” and immediately conclude that, in one universe they are a singer, and in another they are an astronaut, and in another still they weren’t born at all, etc., are making an incorrect assumption about the nature of infinity itself.
Framed another way, we have exactly one example of a possible universe. Tell me, what creative force do you believe in which would intervene to ensure other universes play out differently?
I think a creative force is required to ensure other universes play out similarly, not the other way around. Things naturally spread out randomly instead of unified, variances accumulate to cause chaos instead of order. Similar to how the overall entropy always increase.
We have reached the root of the disagreement.
Do things naturally spread out randomly? Given the same hand reaching into the same lottery box, does some inherent law of the universe guarantee that the number drawn is totally unpredictable?
Given our predicament of having limited information, and limited capacity for understanding, I agree that statistical models are some of the best tools we have, and a very practical way of navigating the world. Many things are effectively random to us, after all. We cannot hope to comprehend every variable at play when all of the numbers cascaded into the bucket.
But how random is it really? The electrical signals firing in your brain are as random and quantum as we could possibly imagine, yet somehow, you experience a single continuous consciousness, waking up as yourself morning after morning. How could that be possible if cause-and-effect were superseded by some principle of inherent chaos? Do you propose this randomness is merely too subtle to detect? In that case, it would be unfalsifiable, leaving us forced to conclude that the hand always draws the same number.
Things can be random and chaotic but if the effects are slow enough then we can still find order in a short period. Evolution is randomness + natural selection but it happens over such a long period we can't really feel it. Yet we are affected by and products of evolution.
Once again, we model genetic variation as being “random” because we cannot currently predict it accurately, but in truth it’s no different than the lottery. You have quite the task ahead of you if you intend to prove it is necessarily and totally chaotic.
If things are usually "seemingly random" to us it would imply the multiverse would also be "seemingly random" to us. I don't see the need to prove the chaotic to be truly, whatever that means.
Well, if you don’t care about proving anything, and you simply believe your assumptions are facts, then why are you discussing it with me? Please continue to think whatever you wish, just as I will continue to remain unconvinced by your gut instinct on this topic
Likewise I'm not convinced that I'm the one who needs to provide proofs in this discussion. You already said that "we" model genetic variation as being “random”. And the model is working great. Therefore it is only reasonable to assume things work according to the model unless proved otherwise. A model doesn't need to be 100% correct to make correct predictions. We still use Newton's physics model to predict things (flawlessly) even tho it's not a "truly" correct model.
Um, sorry to say friend, but Newton’s laws are actually just approximations. This is the entire basis of the emergence of quantum theory.
This perfectly illustrates the error in your thought process. You live life assuming that whatever pops into your head is the truth. Well, look where that’s led you, you actually believe physics has not improved since the 17th century.
I’ll give you a hint: scientists do not simply write “this seems reasonable to me, therefore I feel no need to prove it” underneath their theorems. You made a claim, and you need to provide evidence if you expect to be taken seriously
Have you read my comment? I'm aware that Newton's model is not correct. My point was that it still predict flawlessly in most cases.
Whatever you say friend, enjoy your flawless yet incorrect predictions then, whatever that means
Is there a similar strong will or intention in how a multiverse evolves?
Well, if we're talking about the many worlds theorem, then probably yeah, because both worlds came from a common starting point and evolve together. Like, imagine that I flip 100 quantum coins, creating 2^100 (1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376) universes in a multiverse. Every universe will be different, but the vast majority of them will have roughly 50 heads and roughly 50 tails. 7% of them will even have exactly 50 heads. There is one universe where every coin flip lands on heads, but it's only one universe among nonillions, you could spend your entire life searching universes and never find it. None of the universes are the same, but most of them are so boringly similar that you couldn't tell them apart. It's the central limit theorem, that lots of random events trend towards uniformity
nobody really knows, but if I had to guess I'd say that's probably the way our universe would be, our universe might technically be different from the one next to it, but it would only be different by a single electron on mars that decided to move an atom to the left. There might be a universe somewhere where all of the particles in a lotto wheel quantum tunnel to make the winning number be your number, but it would be outnumbered an infinity to one by universes where that didn't happen and it looks exactly the same as ours.
That's true when you only looks at the point of start or point of differ. In each of the universe other random events will keep happening and the accumulate of variances would have chaotic effects.
It seems inefficient to run so many instances of the same scenario
You haven't disproved anything. The common understanding of multiverses typically only extends to livable multiverses, but there are infinite multiverses capable of sustaining logic and organization, just as there are infinite universes of junk data.
I have disproven that an infinite set necessarily contains every arbitrary possibility. And quite simply, too. Notice how the set of natural numbers does not contain any grapes.
Thus, the burden of proof is now on those who claim they do know what is in the multiverse. Such as yourself. What evidence do you have for these “junk data” universes?
I'm going to blow your mind with a simple bit of logic. IF the junk data universes don't exist, then the multiverse isn't infinite. Order is an infinite subset of disorder.
Did you learn that from a fortune cookie?
How is the universe infinite if there's something missing?
The set of natural numbers is infinite. The number 2.5 is missing from that set. Therefore infinite sets do not contain every possibility.
It's not rocket science
You're talking about countable infinities vs uncountable infinities, but you're proving my point. Order is a countable infinity, disorder is an uncountable infinity. You've just abstracted yourself into a corner.
sigh, very well then.
Consider the set of real numbers, which is an uncountable infinity. Notice how this infinite set does not contain any grapes.
It's not rocket science
Grapes and real numbers are both finite distinctions of a shared infinitely ordered set, which itself is part of an infinitely disordered set. Numbers are an infinitely ordered set that do not contain grapes. Grapes are part of many finite sets that are also part of an infinitely ordered set. Both exist within disordered and ordered sets as well. You're not describing limitations of the infinite like you think you are. You're only describing the limitations of your understanding of the infinite.
Exactly this. I think the real problem is that “infinite” is virtually impossible to comprehend, so people regularly misunderstand what it means and how it works.
They're slippery concepts to be sure. Language itself becomes an impediment when discussing the subject. How can one use terms which were created to narrow perspective in order to expand consciousness to encompass the ineffable?
Well, yes, obviously different infinite sets have different contents. Do you have a point that's actually relevant to what we're talking about?
No, no more points to make with you. You've missed every point I've made so far, so to continue would be a waste of time.
Probably for the best. Thanks for your…unique…contributions to the discussion!
This is actually a huge pet peeve of mine. Just because there are an infinite number of possibilities doesn’t mean anything is possible
Let’s investigate the list of natural numbers. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. It stretches on for infinity, but nowhere in this infinite set will you find the number 2.5. Or negative 1. Or countless other examples.
Next let’s consider a warehouse with an infinite number of CDs, each burned with a copy of the Donkey Kong Country soundtrack. Each of these discs are different. They have slight differences in the label, diameter, and flatness, due to manufacturing tolerances. They have different random bits that get flipped sometimes due to solar particle collision and quantum variation, which may eventually make different discs unreadable. They decay over the centuries at different rates, due to temperature and sun exposure differences in the warehouse (climate control for an infinite space is very expensive).
Each of these discs are, materially speaking, completely different from one another. But, from the perspective of our limited human perception, they are for the time being completely interchangeable. Whichever one you select, you will listen to and have the same experience.
This is by far the most likely scenario if we indeed live in a multiverse. An infinite number of earths, with an infinite number of you, lives filled with all the same mistakes and triumphs, all reading this comment together right now.
Edit: spelling
What blew my mind is that it hasn't been proven that pi contains an infinte number of ones, for instance. It's not out of the question that there is a decimal place where the last 1 appears and there are none from then on.
It's not really likely, but we simply don't know and it is possible. It sounds weird given how many decimals of pi we've calculated, until you realise we've literally calculated 0% of them.
Yeah! It’s a really beautiful thing to think about. And exciting to imagine we may one day see a mathematician who works out the truth
Yep! Pi might be a "Normal" irrational number, which is a really poorly named classification that basically means that the "random" arrangement of numbers in pi isn't weighted and so you'll end up with 1 in 10 digits being 1, and that that will be true for all bases. We're kind of at a point where we think Pi is "normal", but we can't prove it.
If it is "normal" though, then that means that you could find any arbitrary sequence of numbers inside of pi, somewhere. Meaning that in base 128, pi would contain the ascii sequence for every book ever written, every book that ever will be written, every book that could be written, the accurate date of your death, and anything else you could ever imagine. Again, that's not proven, but we think it's the case
Whatcha got in that pi? Everything...
From a mathematical standpoint you're right, but from the standpoint of application pi has an infinitesimal accuracy without going to 45 digits. At 3.1415926535, we're more accurate than the distance between 3 atoms.
I don't see how that's relevant. Plus your last sentence sounds like you're just repeating something you heard but forgot a part of it, because it makes no sense as it is.
The part they're misremembering is that if you used 39 digits of pi as pi (not 45), it would be enough to calculate the circumference of the observable universe with a forward error of less than the width of a hydrogen atom (not the distance between 3)
Whenever I think about the possibility of a Multiverse it just gets so unbelievably convoluted that I can't believe that that's how the Universe/Multiverse actually exists. Is the idea that every potential change in every atom or event in the Universe leads to all these other Universes, all co-existing, no matter how small & insignificant the differences? So we'd have a ridiculous number of Universes whose sole difference from ours is that a single atom behaved slightly differently in a rock out in the parking lot. Then multiply that by EVERY possible atom in the entire Universe, all behaving slightly differently.
That's just physical matter, what about conscious decisions made by living things? So in one Universe I filled my bowl of cereal with X oz of milk VS another universe where I filled it with X+1 oz of milk, and so on. All these micro-decisions that branch out into separate timelines, multiplied by the number of living entities in the Universe, every second of every day.
So are new Universes just constantly springing into existence at every moment in time, connected to every atom and every living thing, just brought about by tiny differences? I write some gobbledygook here: aksfhkashdf in one universe, adshfoasfdoajsidd in another, pooigjmasiodmfas in another, and so on. Multiple universes all suddenly springing into existence based on random key presses? Universes can't possibly be that "easy" to create can they, all that mass and energy, just poofed into existence, and it's constantly happening every second? Is mass, energy, and space just meaningless?
Or is it some other more basic set of differences describe the universe, just the starting conditions are different, but from there, each different Universe just proceeds as is, without multiple branching timelines? I'm not smart enough to understand any of it, it just quickly gets so incredibly convoluted and complicated for me to wrap my brain around.
There are a few possibilities:
CDs are optical storage, just plastic with tiny bumps. It's magnetic and solid state storage that can have bit flipping.
Ah, but you see, this example takes place in the universe where CDs are susceptible as well
I am five parallel universes ahead of you
I think a lot of people assume a multiverse works that way because popular fiction makes it look like it does. However popular fiction is using something more akin to an omniverse (idk if there is an actual agreed scientific definition for a collection of multiple multiverses so Im just using that).
Using your analogy with the donkey kong discs being different universes with slight alterations in the warehouse (multiverse). In an omniverse scenario that you see in popular fiction, next door you'd have another warehouse but instead of donkey kong discs it is mario discs, or maybe donkey kong plushies.
However again that's all speculative of if there even is a multiverse let alone something larger than that
due to the nature of infinity — a la monkeys and typewriters — you could have not only a single CD that due to a catastrophic series of errors is actually something completely different from a CD — but an infinite number of them.
Is it entirely beyond the realms of possibility that an infinitesimally small stroke of luck could create a sentient race of CD people? Except "small" doesn't make sense in infinity — "small" just means "a less common certainty"
An infinite series of random letters would of course contain every book, that’s definitionally true.
But infinity itself does not empower the whims of the imagination (indeed this is the entire point). Yes, it is definitely impossible for the warehouse to contain a sentient race of CD people. Polycarbonate plastic simply cannot exhibit any of the qualities of being alive under any circumstances
I know I'm nit picking here but that's the point of examining infinity, but wouldn't it be foolish to say "there are no examples of hydrogen gas becoming sentient under any circumstances!" because, well, we're both sentient decendants of a reaction between two or more hydrogen atoms.
Yes the conditions that led from hydrogen > helium > deuterium > ... > ... > ... single celled organisms > ... > ... primates > ... > ... humans are incredibly complicated and specific. But what if we applied the same complicated and specific process (or an infinite variation thereof) to the CD factory. Are you sure it's impossible? and worse yet - can you prove it?
This is known as an argument from ignorance. I'm not sure how familiar you are with this terminology, so to be clear, I am not insulting you or calling you ignorant. But in summary, something is not true until proven otherwise.
The conditions inside the warehouse are not similar to the conditions of the early universe or the primordial soup. You need to demonstrate a mechanism for stable, non-reactive plastic to become sentient if you assert that it's indeed possible.
for one - it's an infinite warehouse, so the parts of it that are near stars, black holes, planets, moons and comets are destroyed, sucked in etc, creating several stable "rare-Earth" conditions at the Goldilocks distance from heat sources, and using the debris from collision follows the same basic principle of how life on Earth started, but with melted plastic from the burned cds instead of in water. Life - uh - finds a way.
The warehouse is more similar to SCP-3008, for property tax reasons
Natural numbers doesn't contain 2.5 because we define it so. Similarly all those CDs are practically the same because it's made in a factory designed to minimize the variance. Is there a similar strong will or intention in how a multiverse evolves?
It's an analogy, the specific case doesn't matter. It demonstrates that infinite does not mean literally everything, it's possible for some item to be missing from any particular infinite set. In a box of infinite apples you won't have an orange; in a box of infinite fruit you won't have a chicken; in an infinite multiverse you by definition won't have a universe which isn't part of that multiverse.
Ya, but OP was talking about what's the "most likely" scenario. Which I don't think the selected analogy demonstrated.
I suppose then you’d have been more satisfied with the example of an infinite number of grains of sand, each polished smooth and strewn across an infinite beach.
Or simply an infinite expanse of empty space, each with unique coordinates, yet unable to be differentiated in the absence of any reference.
The point being, infinity itself is a concept we defined a certain way. And no part of that definition mandates variation. People who hear “infinity” and immediately conclude that, in one universe they are a singer, and in another they are an astronaut, and in another still they weren’t born at all, etc., are making an incorrect assumption about the nature of infinity itself.
Framed another way, we have exactly one example of a possible universe. Tell me, what creative force do you believe in which would intervene to ensure other universes play out differently?
I think a creative force is required to ensure other universes play out similarly, not the other way around. Things naturally spread out randomly instead of unified, variances accumulate to cause chaos instead of order. Similar to how the overall entropy always increase.
We have reached the root of the disagreement.
Do things naturally spread out randomly? Given the same hand reaching into the same lottery box, does some inherent law of the universe guarantee that the number drawn is totally unpredictable?
Given our predicament of having limited information, and limited capacity for understanding, I agree that statistical models are some of the best tools we have, and a very practical way of navigating the world. Many things are effectively random to us, after all. We cannot hope to comprehend every variable at play when all of the numbers cascaded into the bucket.
But how random is it really? The electrical signals firing in your brain are as random and quantum as we could possibly imagine, yet somehow, you experience a single continuous consciousness, waking up as yourself morning after morning. How could that be possible if cause-and-effect were superseded by some principle of inherent chaos? Do you propose this randomness is merely too subtle to detect? In that case, it would be unfalsifiable, leaving us forced to conclude that the hand always draws the same number.
Things can be random and chaotic but if the effects are slow enough then we can still find order in a short period. Evolution is randomness + natural selection but it happens over such a long period we can't really feel it. Yet we are affected by and products of evolution.
Once again, we model genetic variation as being “random” because we cannot currently predict it accurately, but in truth it’s no different than the lottery. You have quite the task ahead of you if you intend to prove it is necessarily and totally chaotic.
If things are usually "seemingly random" to us it would imply the multiverse would also be "seemingly random" to us. I don't see the need to prove the chaotic to be truly, whatever that means.
Well, if you don’t care about proving anything, and you simply believe your assumptions are facts, then why are you discussing it with me? Please continue to think whatever you wish, just as I will continue to remain unconvinced by your gut instinct on this topic
Likewise I'm not convinced that I'm the one who needs to provide proofs in this discussion. You already said that "we" model genetic variation as being “random”. And the model is working great. Therefore it is only reasonable to assume things work according to the model unless proved otherwise. A model doesn't need to be 100% correct to make correct predictions. We still use Newton's physics model to predict things (flawlessly) even tho it's not a "truly" correct model.
Um, sorry to say friend, but Newton’s laws are actually just approximations. This is the entire basis of the emergence of quantum theory.
This perfectly illustrates the error in your thought process. You live life assuming that whatever pops into your head is the truth. Well, look where that’s led you, you actually believe physics has not improved since the 17th century.
I’ll give you a hint: scientists do not simply write “this seems reasonable to me, therefore I feel no need to prove it” underneath their theorems. You made a claim, and you need to provide evidence if you expect to be taken seriously
Have you read my comment? I'm aware that Newton's model is not correct. My point was that it still predict flawlessly in most cases.
Whatever you say friend, enjoy your flawless yet incorrect predictions then, whatever that means
Well, if we're talking about the many worlds theorem, then probably yeah, because both worlds came from a common starting point and evolve together. Like, imagine that I flip 100 quantum coins, creating 2^100 (1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376) universes in a multiverse. Every universe will be different, but the vast majority of them will have roughly 50 heads and roughly 50 tails. 7% of them will even have exactly 50 heads. There is one universe where every coin flip lands on heads, but it's only one universe among nonillions, you could spend your entire life searching universes and never find it. None of the universes are the same, but most of them are so boringly similar that you couldn't tell them apart. It's the central limit theorem, that lots of random events trend towards uniformity
nobody really knows, but if I had to guess I'd say that's probably the way our universe would be, our universe might technically be different from the one next to it, but it would only be different by a single electron on mars that decided to move an atom to the left. There might be a universe somewhere where all of the particles in a lotto wheel quantum tunnel to make the winning number be your number, but it would be outnumbered an infinity to one by universes where that didn't happen and it looks exactly the same as ours.
That's true when you only looks at the point of start or point of differ. In each of the universe other random events will keep happening and the accumulate of variances would have chaotic effects.
It seems inefficient to run so many instances of the same scenario
You haven't disproved anything. The common understanding of multiverses typically only extends to livable multiverses, but there are infinite multiverses capable of sustaining logic and organization, just as there are infinite universes of junk data.
I have disproven that an infinite set necessarily contains every arbitrary possibility. And quite simply, too. Notice how the set of natural numbers does not contain any grapes.
Thus, the burden of proof is now on those who claim they do know what is in the multiverse. Such as yourself. What evidence do you have for these “junk data” universes?
I'm going to blow your mind with a simple bit of logic. IF the junk data universes don't exist, then the multiverse isn't infinite. Order is an infinite subset of disorder.
Did you learn that from a fortune cookie?
How is the universe infinite if there's something missing?
The set of natural numbers is infinite. The number 2.5 is missing from that set. Therefore infinite sets do not contain every possibility.
It's not rocket science
You're talking about countable infinities vs uncountable infinities, but you're proving my point. Order is a countable infinity, disorder is an uncountable infinity. You've just abstracted yourself into a corner.
sigh, very well then.
Consider the set of real numbers, which is an uncountable infinity. Notice how this infinite set does not contain any grapes.
It's not rocket science
Grapes and real numbers are both finite distinctions of a shared infinitely ordered set, which itself is part of an infinitely disordered set. Numbers are an infinitely ordered set that do not contain grapes. Grapes are part of many finite sets that are also part of an infinitely ordered set. Both exist within disordered and ordered sets as well. You're not describing limitations of the infinite like you think you are. You're only describing the limitations of your understanding of the infinite.
Exactly this. I think the real problem is that “infinite” is virtually impossible to comprehend, so people regularly misunderstand what it means and how it works.
They're slippery concepts to be sure. Language itself becomes an impediment when discussing the subject. How can one use terms which were created to narrow perspective in order to expand consciousness to encompass the ineffable?
Well, yes, obviously different infinite sets have different contents. Do you have a point that's actually relevant to what we're talking about?
No, no more points to make with you. You've missed every point I've made so far, so to continue would be a waste of time.
Probably for the best. Thanks for your…unique…contributions to the discussion!