# Thread: Multiverse theory

1. hmmm. Just a thought;

If multi-verse theory is correct (which it is looking ever more that it could be correct) i.e. an infinite number of parallel universes where every infinite possibility conceivable is played out then........

....If the existence of God is a possibility, just as the non-existence of God is; meaning both are true and false at the same time. ergo: The existence of God is a certainty as is the non-existence of God.

Time to get my prayer book out! - i don't know which universe i'm in !

Further more, if that theory is true then that would also mean that there would be a universe in which multi-verse theory is incorrect.....now, this IS really getting strange !

2.

3. Do you mean the multiverse interpretation of QM, or the multiverse theory related to string theory? I don't think either says that 0 probability events are required to occur somewhere, and I'm pretty sure that P(god) is either 0 or 1 in such a system.

4. Infinite possibilities = everything becomes a certainty.

5. Originally Posted by leohopkins
Infinite possibilities = everything becomes a certainty.
Wrong.

Some physicists who fail to understand the theory of probability make such statements. But it is simply nonsense.

What is true is that the law of large numbers would indicate that, with probability 1, all events of non-zero probability will occur infinitely often in infinitely many independent trials.

The application of the law of large numbers requires that one first have a probability space, something that is lacking in your statement and in the statement made by the physicists noted above.

6. but surely infinite possibility cannot by its very nature zero probability.......

........hmmm

actually, im beginning to possibly see your point, because if that were so then the probability of no probability would become a probability and wed be stuck in a paradox.

7. Maybe the entire universe is made of thoughts. In that case, you have just proven that even the paradoxical universes exist simply because you imagined them and caused them to exist in your thoughts.

8. Originally Posted by leohopkins
but surely infinite possibility cannot by its very nature zero probability.......

........hmmm

actually, im beginning to possibly see your point, because if that were so then the probability of no probability would become a probability and wed be stuck in a paradox.
I am not sure what you mean.

The rough (very rough) probabilistic idea is this.

The probability of an event is the number of times the event occurs in N trials divided by N in the limit as N increases without bound. If an event were to occur only a finite number of times then in the limit as N becomes large, the probability is zero. So to have a positive probability the event must occur infinitely many times.

On the other hand, an even can occur a finite number of times, or even an infinite number of times (just not too frequently) and have zero probability.

This is a very rough and intuitive explanation. A proper rigorous explanation requires the use of measure theory, which is moderately advanced mathematics (usually first year graduate level).

In either case one needs to be working in the context of some probability space, and the "multiverse" crowd doesn't have one. This is a recognized problem, one of many problems, with the "landscape" or "multiverse" theory of cosmology. It is basically nonsense cooked up by physicists who are overcome by a perceived beauty in string theory and their inability to produce a single theory that describes the universe in which we actually live.

This has nothing to do with the "many worlds" interpretion of quantum mechanics due to Hugh Everett. That interpretation, while qualitatively similar to the "multiverse" in some respects, is simply another way of looking at quantum mechanics that is experimentally indistinguishable from the more common Copenhagen interpretation.

9. no,

infinite universes = infinite probability yes, but that only applies to things with some degree of probability

the chances of winning a lottery in which every person on the planet has a ticket is infintesimally low, however it's still a probability, therefore with infinite universes and infinite chances you are guaranteed to win the lottery (in fact, infinite chances means you win an infinite ammount of times)

however something with 0 probability will never happen, 0X10 is zero. 0X infinite will still be zero

god does NOT exist, there is no proof, it cannot logically exist within our given laws so in infinite universe god still doesn't exist

so in short

no

10. Originally Posted by Booms
no,

infinite universes = infinite probability yes, but that only applies to things with some degree of probability

the chances of winning a lottery in which every person on the planet has a ticket is infintesimally low, however it's still a probability, therefore with infinite universes and infinite chances you are guaranteed to win the lottery (in fact, infinite chances means you win an infinite ammount of times)

however something with 0 probability will never happen, 0X10 is zero. 0X infinite will still be zero

god does NOT exist, there is no proof, it cannot logically exist within our given laws so in infinite universe god still doesn't exist

so in short

no
Hmmm. yes I see your point. It was worth a shot debating though.
and maybe the universe is indeed just simply made of thoughts and there really is no substance it any of it; however this idea can easily be "debunked" if you like take "dark flow" for instance....no one was expecting to see that nor had it been predicted / thought of before it was observed.

11. Originally Posted by Booms
no,

infinite universes = infinite probability yes, but that only applies to things with some degree of probability

the chances of winning a lottery in which every person on the planet has a ticket is infintesimally low, however it's still a probability, therefore with infinite universes and infinite chances you are guaranteed to win the lottery (in fact, infinite chances means you win an infinite ammount of times)

however something with 0 probability will never happen, 0X10 is zero. 0X infinite will still be zero

god does NOT exist, there is no proof, it cannot logically exist within our given laws so in infinite universe god still doesn't exist

so in short

no
Absolutely nothing in this post is correct. You have managed to mangle the theory of probability beyond all recognition.

12. Does the "multiverse" theory only cover parallel universes or does it also cover the possibility that there are other universes in space like there are other galaxies in our known universe?

Meaning that the center the universe as we know it is not the center of all space but is only an arm of a cluster of universes surrounding yet another point. If that makes sense to you. Are there any mathematical or other proofs that would contradict that statement?

13. Originally Posted by biggofwi
Does the "multiverse" theory only cover parallel universes or does it also cover the possibility that there are other universes in space like there are other galaxies in our known universe?

Meaning that the center the universe as we know it is not the center of all space but is only an arm of a cluster of universes surrounding yet another point. If that makes sense to you. Are there any mathematical or other proofs that would contradict that statement?
There is no multiverse theory. Nobody has a theory, but some people have a fantasy.
The question is not whether mathematics contradict this tripe, but whether there is anything that supports it. There is not.

The so-called multiverse theory, as espoused by Leonard Susskind for instance, is based on the complete failure of string theory to produce a unique mathematically consistent theory to describe physics as we know it.

Instead the proponents of string theory claim that there are on the order of 10^500 mathematically consistent string theories. Based on that assertion, and the aesthetic beauty of string theory, they they claim that ALL of those theories must be representative of some universe. The collection of those universes is the "multiverse" or "landscape". They then use anthropic reasoning to "explain" our little piece of this universe.

There are a couple of problems with their logic

1) NOBODY has ever rigorously completely defined any string theory. So nobody really knows what string theory is.

2) In all of those supposed 10^500 valid string theories, they cannot point to one that actually describes the physics that we observe.

3) Just because some mathematical theory is consistent it does no necessarily mean that is describes any physical reality.

We already know that in the universe there are portions that are causally disconnected from us and that are receding at superluminal speeds. So they will never be causally connected to us. Anything farther out than that, such as the supposed other "pocket universes" in the "multiverse", are equally causally disconnected, and therefore even in principle can have no effect on us nor be observed. They are therefore totally irrelevant, even in unlikely event that they exist.

Whatever this speculation is, it is not science. It has nothing to do with anything that could ever be measured or ever affect us. It is simply a desperate attempt to make research that has not born fruit appear to offer answers. Since they cannot answer any questions that anyone should care about, they make up questions the answers to which can be neither proved nor disproved. This is just plain silly.

If and when string theory ever starts to make testable predictions you can bet that this "multiverse" nonsense will go away. Then you may see some very exciting physics being developed. But that is not now. Until then string theory will continue to produce interesting mathematical conjectures, but don't confuse it with physics.

14. How do you know that there are pockets of the universe that have become disconnected and what do you mean by receding at super luminal speed? As in collapsing?

15. Originally Posted by biggofwi
How do you know that there are pockets of the universe that have become disconnected and what do you mean by receding at super luminal speed? As in collapsing?
No pockets. Allof the unverse beyond the Hubble sphere.

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

Receding at superluminal speed means that the distance between us and them in increasing to produce a recession speed that is faster than the speed of light. That is the opposite of collapsing.

16. This may help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Classification

There is a classification of 4 types of parallel universe.

Observation from WMAP indicate that the universe is flat. Thus the Level 1 Multiverse seems to be the one we live in. However it may so big that the curvature of it is very slight and was not detected by WMAP. In this case we may live in a level 2 Quantum parallel universe. An island universe. Then the Level 3 and so on.

17. Originally Posted by Wildstar
This may help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Classification

There is a classification of 4 types of parallel universe.

Observation from WMAP indicate that the universe is flat. Thus the Level 1 Multiverse seems to be the one we live in. However it may so big that the curvature of it is very slight and was not detected by WMAP. In this case we may live in a level 2 Quantum parallel universe. An island universe. Then the Level 3 and so on.
What a pile of fantastical, unverifiable, irrelevant and just plain wrong crap !

An infinite ergodic universe is a self-contradictory term. Apparently the author flunked that class in probability theory. It is quite impossible to have infinitely many equally likely events of positive probability.

The universe may or may not be flat on a very very large scale, but the universe is most certainly not flat. If it were there, would be no gravity.

Even if the universe is flat on a large scale, that tells you very little about the topology. There are 6 distinct orientable, compact, flat 3-manifolds.

18. We might be able to detect pre-big bang universes with some gravity wave detectors set to come online soon.

19. Originally Posted by Wildstar
We might be able to detect pre-big bang universes with some gravity wave detectors set to come online soon.
bullshit

20.

21. Originally Posted by CrimsonViper
Your sources are, to put it kindly, questionable.

The next prediction supportable from the loop quantum gravity crowd will be the first one.

There is NO theory on which to base any such speculation. I don't give a damn what some LQG guy from the Perimeter Institute says.

This is the sort of crap that is finding its way into popular expositions of physics that would not last a millisecond in front of a professional audience.

22. It seems mr rocket is living in a universe without any probabilities.

23. Drrocket what exactly do you "do" as you seem to be the dominating figure in the forum? lol you are very inteligent

24. first of all i would like to say that i dont belive in multiverse theory(multiple parallel universe).you said there might be some universe where multiverse theory is false but i think that is only your prespective of seeing,saying there is multiuniverse and not simutaneously so it seems you are confused not strange. if you toss a coin then it have half probability of both head and tail before tossing but the out come is certainly only one either head or tail so as i think we have multiple arguments about universe which is already toss and have only one outcome with multiple probalistic argument in our mind.
it would be fruitful to think about our existing universe so(as stephen hawkings says to think about after big bang not before because spacetime has not the begning before bigbang) not multiple parallel universe exactly having same structure as ours but with different history....(great philoshopical)unbearable!

25. Originally Posted by "DrRocket
I am a new member of the forum and don't know how it works yet. Excuse any errors.

I would like to offer a few of my musings on Multiverse theory, and would appreciate comments.

IMHO, words like "infinite" are being thrown around much too freely here. Since we are dealing with quantum theory, why can't parallel 3-D "slices" of a 4-D reality be hypothesized to be separated by a very very tiny "quantized" distance instead of a zero distance in the extra 4th space dimension, thus giving a very large but still finite number of parallel universes?

Why is it assumed that these parallel universes must contain ALL possibilities? Since quantum calculations deal with the probabilities of quantum states and there are only a finite number of quantum states, and even a very large number of different quantum states combined in a macroscopic object would still produce only a very small difference, why is an infinite number of possible variations of macroscopic objects necessary or even possible in a finite number of universes?

This may not be very clear, but enough to start. I have many more, and hope to learn a lot here. I probably like the Multiverse interpretation of quantum physics better because of my horrified aversion to the Copenhagen interpretation, which to me seems to explain nothing and only says: Don't ask questions!

Thanks,

John

26. Originally Posted by JohnPaul
I am a new member of the forum and don't know how it works yet. Excuse any errors.

I would like to offer a few of my musings on Multiverse theory, and would appreciate comments.

IMHO, words like "infinite" are being thrown around much too freely here. Since we are dealing with quantum theory, why can't parallel 3-D "slices" of a 4-D reality be hypothesized to be separated by a very very tiny "quantized" distance instead of a zero distance in the extra 4th space dimension, thus giving a very large but still finite number of parallel universes?

Why is it assumed that these parallel universes must contain ALL possibilities? Since quantum calculations deal with the probabilities of quantum states and there are only a finite number of quantum states, and even a very large number of different quantum states combined in a macroscopic object would still produce only a very small difference, why is an infinite number of possible variations of macroscopic objects necessary or even possible in a finite number of universes?

This may not be very clear, but enough to start. I have many more, and hope to learn a lot here. I probably like the Multiverse interpretation of quantum physics better because of my horrified aversion to the Copenhagen interpretation, which to me seems to explain nothing and only says: Don't ask questions!

Thanks,

John
Although I have seen it stated that there are only afinite number of quantum states (by people who should know better) that is not true. There are a finite number of bound states, but once a particle has sufficient energy to not be bound, the number of possible states is uncountably infinite.

If you don't like the Copenhagen interpretation, use the Many Worlds interpretation. What counts is not the interpretative story that is told, but rather the quantitatve predictions.

The Many Worlds inteerpretation is not the "multiverse" of string theory. There are all sorts of problems with the multiverse, but the killer is the "measure problem".

27. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Although I have seen it stated that there are only afinite number of quantum states (by people who should know better) that is not true. There are a finite number of bound states, but once a particle has sufficient energy to not be bound, the number of possible states is uncountably infinite.

If you don't like the Copenhagen interpretation, use the Many Worlds interpretation. What counts is not the interpretative story that is told, but rather the quantitatve predictions.

The Many Worlds inteerpretation is not the "multiverse" of string theory. There are all sorts of problems with the multiverse, but the killer is the "measure problem".
Thanks. It is the Many Worlds interpretation I was thinking of. Most of what I know about String Theory is only what comes from "Scientific American" magazine. I don't have much hope for it, but at least it opens up new ideas.

John

28. Sometime ago, I made a feeble attempt (on a distinct forum) to try to compute the number of possible universes that may exist within the multiverse . I know that it isn't real science, but still, it was fun to do.

I often bumped into paradoxes while dealing with infinity, when describing a model for the multiverse theory. So I just denied the existence of infinity and accepted that the number of universes is not infinite.
Now, my question is, just how many ? Thus, I devised an exponential function, that would calculate the number. f(T)=N^T/PT

We do hypothesize that, a universe is born at every quantum indeterminacy. I thus came up with a number N that would represent the number of such indeterminacies per Planck Time.
We know Planck's Time is 5.39124(27) × 10^-44 seconds (We'll call this constant PT) , and we also know the age of the Universe (13,7 billion years) (T).
Using Google's calculator, I found out that 13,7 billion years equals 4,32329886 × 10^17 seconds.
Now, using the exponential formula f(T)=N^T/PT, we would be able to compute the number of universes at any given time.
Furthermore, we may define N as being f(0), and expand the function to : f(T)= f(T-PT) ^ T/PT . As we are working in timeframes, the function's domain should be N.

By doing the actual math, you get
N to the power of 8.018.254.986.919.343.148.609.046.096.189.012.546. 151.653.966.514.824.601.192.685 universes , at present T.

That is N to the power of 8 decillion (8*10 to the power of 60) on the long scale.

29. First, I have to admit that I'm a rank amateur when it comes to probability theory, infinities, multiverses, etc.

That said, I'm reluctant to accept theories that invoke hypothetical entities that are, by definition, outside our ability to ever make any observation which can verify or refute their existence.

For a long time I had difficulty with the notion of cosmic inflation as proposed by Alan Guth, et al. To me, it seemed "made up" just to explain the "flatness problem" and the "horizon problem" that perplexed cosmologists in the 70's.

Upon studying some of the background on how inflationary theory was developed and realizing that it was both internally consistent and consistent with other accepted theories (General Relativity, specifically), I started to accept that this theory wasn't just made up as a scientific convenience.

Ultimately, observational evidence from COBE and WMAP supported predictions made by inflationary theory and, as far as I know, secured its acceptance by the scientific community at large:
While inflation was a very interesting theory that was able to solve some existing problems in cosmology, it still needed to be tested. Scientists decided to find out if there is the amount of variation in the background inflation that was predicted by inflationary theory. To accomplish it, they sent two probes to measure the non-uniformities that Guth and Linde said could be found. The results of the first, COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) were released in 1992 and said “yes.” However, the physicists who sent it felt that they needed to modify their estimates of the experimental uncertainties. COBE was followed in 2003 by WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe), which showed that the nonuniformities did exist with even greater precision. This helped show that Guth’s ideas on inflation were the correct ones
(ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth#Confirmation )

With theories such as the "many-worlds interpretation" I again am reluctant to accept them as valid because it seems they're "made up":
Prior to many-worlds, reality had been viewed as a single unfolding history. Many-worlds, rather, views reality as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised
(ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation )

Instead of researchers saying "I don't know why the coin landed heads-up" they seem to be saying "Well, the coin landed heads-up in this world, but it landed tails-up in another world".

Rather than an explanation, this seens to me to be a rather lame attempt to avoid saying "I don't know".

Chris

30. Originally Posted by CSMYTH3025
Instead of researchers saying "I don't know why the coin landed heads-up" they seem to be saying "Well, the coin landed heads-up in this world, but it landed tails-up in another world".

Rather than an explanation, this seens to me to be a rather lame attempt to avoid saying "I don't know".

Chris
Developing a theory which is internally consistent and provides at least a possible explanation for something, even if it admitted can't be proved in its present form, is a little different than simply saying "I don't know" and walking away.

The real unanswered question about the Many Worlds theory is what is the nature of our "conscious awareness" which makes us believe we live in one world and not in another? My opinion is that this is an illusion created by the physical memories stored in our brains which are an artifact of perceptions limited to only that one world. Similar memories exist in all other worlds (which contain simultaneous versions of us) which give the same illusion to all those other versions, each believing it is the only "real" version. A very large number of us exist side-by-side simultaneously, each firmly convinced it is the only real one!

As for the coin, back when I was young and foolish, I had a passing interest in gambling systems and did a little research on probability theory. It is impossible to predict the results of a single toss of a coin, but it is well-known that the proportion of heads and tails becomes increasingly equal as the size of the sample increases, and not so well known that the proportion of sequential "runs" of heads or tails, 1 tail, 2 tails, 3-tails in a row, etc, approaches a geometric series with a sum at infinity of 2. Thus, the "average" length of a run is 2 similar outcomes in a row.

What mysterious force of nature causes this perfect regularity in the true mathematically "random" performance of a coin which the human mind cannot duplicate by making a series of mental choices which the mind may "think" is random, but a mathematical analysis will rapidly show is not?

Incidentally, I did not succeed in finding a successful gambling system!

John

31. There are a whole bunch of problems here.

1. "Many worlds", "multiverse", "cosmic landscape", etc. can be used to refer to several quite different things.

2. The "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, due to Hugh Everett, is only slightly controversial since it produces the same predictions as does the more conventional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

3. An unfortunate fact in physics at the moment is a plethora of speculative theories and conjectures are presented to the public as established science. It appears that the motivation is to sell books and secure research funding.

4. Inflation takes several forms, from an explanation of the first fraction of a second after the big bang to "eternal inflation" which is very much more speculative. The simplest version has indeed made predictions that have been supported by sophisticated measurements of the cosmic microwave background. Still, there is no hint as what the 'inflation field" might be. Guth's initial idea was that it was the Higgs field, but that is now known to be wrong (and the existence of the Higgs field itself has not been confirmed anyway).

5. The string theorists are running amok with untestable theories, like Susskind's "cosmic landscape' which appears to be based on the following reasoning:
a) String theory is so aesthetically pleasing that is just has to be true
b) String theory failed in isolating by mathematical consistency a single unique string theory that describes nature. There in fact seem to be about 10^500 consistent string theories.
c) They are so beautiful that they must all represent reality somewhere. The compendium of all of those "somewheres" is the "landscape".

6. Susskind applies invalid probabilistic reasoning to justify his unfalsifiable theory. In order to apply probability theory you must first have a probability space, with a probability measure. No such measure exists. This is quaintly named the "measure problem" in the literature, glossed over, if acknowledged at all, in popular books. In fact applying probabilistic arguments without a probability measure is utter nonsense.

7. Quite a bit of the string theory arguments hinge, whether explicitly acknowledged or not, on the AdS/CFT correspondence and the "holographic principle. The AdS/CFT correspondence is an unproved conjecture of Maldecena dating from 1997.

8. In fact no one has yet managed to rigorously define what string theory is. The result is s[peculation piled on top of speculation.

Brian Greene has a new book, The Hidden Reality (and reality is indeed very well hidden in it) that talks about the various versions of "parallel universes". But beware. While he chooses his words carefully, and eventually acknowledges some of the issues noted above, he does so only belatedly and does not emphasize them at all. He tends to make outrageous ideas seem somewhat reasonable by downplaying serious issues.

32. How does this relate with the theory of multiple dimensions (beyond 3 +1) ?

If the fifth dimension were probable outcomes, as per the premise of this video, then all of those other "universes" are really tied to this one in a way that preserves some kind of relationship.

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v589221QEEhaFwc

If you were a 2 +1 dimensional being without time, but then became aware of time, then you might perceive each separate moment of time to be its own universe, but all of those universes are clearly related by causality. All the universes that become open to use when we go to 4+1 must also be related by some kind of logic. It's not just willy nilly chaos.

33. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Booms
no,

infinite universes = infinite probability yes, but that only applies to things with some degree of probability

the chances of winning a lottery in which every person on the planet has a ticket is infintesimally low, however it's still a probability, therefore with infinite universes and infinite chances you are guaranteed to win the lottery (in fact, infinite chances means you win an infinite ammount of times)

however something with 0 probability will never happen, 0X10 is zero. 0X infinite will still be zero

god does NOT exist, there is no proof, it cannot logically exist within our given laws so in infinite universe god still doesn't exist

so in short

no
Absolutely nothing in this post is correct. You have managed to mangle the theory of probability beyond all recognition.

Agreed, a very confident post and explanation posing as objective fact, yet totally ignoring the concept of Universes existing which do not conform to our Universe's Laws or indeed any laws, including the laws of mathematics, rendering "0X10 is zero" irrelevant.

Also, how is it possible to determine what has 'zero probability' even within the constraints of our own Universe, and more specifically how arrogant is it it suggest there is zero probability of a deity existing when there is no proof that this is not the case?

I could successfully argue that only one person reading this has a consciousness, and that everything else is manufactured by that consciousness. Occam's Razor surely suggests that the existence of one consciousness in the universe is almost infinitely more probable than billions of such consciousnesses, existing in a physical carbon based world.
It might sound far fetched, but on the balance of probability it is more likely than any alternative.

Avoiding the predictable debate on what is evidence, I'd suggest that the most brilliant minds of our time very, very rarely would discount the possibility of a deity, a creator, unless the likes of Einstein did not understand Physics and universal laws.

Einstein of course did not believe in a personal God, yet leaned towards Spinoza's God which is basically a creative intelligence.

I wouldn't argue that there was a God as it would be pointless, but with Agnosticism being the only honest position to adopt (even Dawkins concedes this), to state that there is no possibility of a deity existing is laughable and more revealing of the poster's irrationality than the concept itself.

34. Even in an infinte number of Universes, there's still never going to be one where 1+1=3.

35. Originally Posted by Daecon
Even in an infinte number of Universes, there's still never going to be one where 1+1=3.

I'd suggest you're right, but it's impossible to state this with certainty as we are basing all our calculations on the laws of this universe.

The fact we cannot envisage any scenario where 1+1=3 may not eliminate the possibility, then again it might - we have to accept our limitations when it comes to infinity as there is no way to test any theory in relation to infinity, it isn't falsifiable so far as I can see.

Far too many paradoxes we can theorize about, for instance, if every possibility is catered for (a certainty) in a multiverse there must also be a universe where the Multiverse can be proved to be non-existent.

36. .

37. Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
Infinite possibilities = everything becomes a certainty.
Wrong.
Is this similar to the fallacy that pi (or better yet, tau) MUST contain all possible finite digit strings since it never ends, does not have a single block of repeating digits, and (as far as we know today) has no patterns at all?

38. I strongly believe that Mathematics and Logic underpins/transcends/supersedes all other physical laws and whatever physical constants any other Universes may have.

Other Universes may have different constants, but there will never and can never be a Universe where the very laws of Mathematics or Logic themselves are different to how they are in this Universe.

39. Originally Posted by anticorncob28
Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
Infinite possibilities = everything becomes a certainty.
Wrong.
Is this similar to the fallacy that pi (or better yet, tau) MUST contain all possible finite digit strings since it never ends, does not have a single block of repeating digits, and (as far as we know today) has no patterns at all?
That's not a fallacy, it's an unproven conjecture. (The property is called normality, BTW.)

@Booms, anything that occurs with only a finite number of possibilities out of an infinite set is probability 0 but not impossible. (And vice versa for 100 percent and certainty.)

40. The debate on the Infinity might just go on forever. Who knows?

In one sense I could say that the Infinity exists but I don't think I'll ever see it to completion. Maybe I'll get close but damn the Universe just seems unlimited in every direction. As soon as I think I've reached the end there is just another Infinity waiting. How to distinguish the Infinity where another Infinity does not exist...you know, in the off-chance that I reach the end of Infinity in the first place?

Where is the Infinity and Zero together?

I think I'll infinite-ly regress for a while longer. See where that takes me this time. I can't seem to decide between One or 10....well, maybe this time. Who knows?

41. Originally Posted by Daecon
Even in an infinte number of Universes, there's still never going to be one where 1+1=3.
Maybe there's this one Universe where 1 + 1 = 11

Hypothetically speaking of course. But there has be something somewhere holding it all together, it would stand to reason. Divided, it seems like One would fall apart and not even exist in the first place. Who knows?

42. If you really want to fail to understand infinity go look up ordinal and cardinal numbers. (Actually don't. It'd just be pointlessly confusing to most people. Suffice it to say that not only are there multiple infinities, there are multiple kinds of infinities.)

But the thing about math is that while it seems to (in some sense) exist, it seems to exist apart from anything else. A 4 dimensional hyper-intelligent shade of blue somewhere in another multiverse can still say that if you put ab blubs in a pen with bu blubs, then there are che blubs and that che is special because you can't put che blubs into a neat rectangle on one plane of rotation, and with a couple more examples we can easily work out that ab is 1, bu is 2 and che is 3. Even plasma beings from the outer layers of Betelgeuse who never had a discrete set of objects to observe can note that the group generated by the additive and multiplicative identities has special properties and can reach the same conclusions although their mathematical geniuses will be discovering Euclidean geometry instead of spherical geometry.

43. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
If you really want to fail to understand infinity go look up ordinal and cardinal numbers. (Actually don't. It'd just be pointlessly confusing to most people. Suffice it to say that not only are there multiple infinities, there are multiple kinds of infinities.)

But the thing about math is that while it seems to (in some sense) exist, it seems to exist apart from anything else. A 4 dimensional hyper-intelligent shade of blue somewhere in another multiverse can still say that if you put ab blubs in a pen with bu blubs, then there are che blubs and that che is special because you can't put che blubs into a neat rectangle on one plane of rotation, and with a couple more examples we can easily work out that ab is 1, bu is 2 and che is 3. Even plasma beings from the outer layers of Betelgeuse who never had a discrete set of objects to observe can note that the group generated by the additive and multiplicative identities has special properties and can reach the same conclusions although their mathematical geniuses will be discovering Euclidean geometry instead of spherical geometry.
Well, you've certainly raised some more questions if anything. I love Science.

Re: Spherical G, I've always wondered why I hearsay this talk about the Sphere (or Circle) being the perfect form found in Nature. I've never found ordinary pi in Nature so where is the perfect Sphere / Circle in Nature? I'll stash that one away in my head for later.

44. Originally Posted by TheLayman
Re: Spherical G, I've always wondered why I hearsay this talk about the Sphere (or Circle) being the perfect form found in Nature. I've never found ordinary pi in Nature so where is the perfect Sphere / Circle in Nature? I'll stash that one away in my head for later.
Yeah.
Do you think that a "perfect" material exists?
How many entirely homogenous bodies exist that have been formed by gravity and have no other influence/ force acting on them?
Don't you think that differing materials have differing properties and thus resist gravity to differing extents?

45. @TheLayman, The sphere exists in nature as the 3D form with the smallest surface area to volume ratio, which is why we have spherical bubbles, spherical droplets (really just an inverse bubble), spherical planets (if they weren't spinning), spherical stars, etc.

As for pi, as Dywyddyr mentioned, things are made from atoms, which aren't continuous, so no ordinary physical thing can be a perfect sphere/circle. But that really doesn't matter. Pi is a mathematical constant and isn't, in and of itself, part of the physical universe. The real physical universe is a messy place, so I'm not really sure why you'd expect to find anything like a perfect circle or sphere.

46. I think multivers is a very costly way of doing thing, like deep copying all entities and their relationships, costly in terms of materials and in logistics.
Knowing that nature is smart, I don't think multiverse is the way things are.
It maybe possible that there is some probablity that some parts of things randumly select to go the mutilverse way, but the majority won't.
Just some thoughts.

47. Once you get outside the one UNIverse, it ceases to be the UNIverse.

Might there be more than one verse? Sure.

But encompassing all the infinite multiverses is still going to be just One grand verse, whatever you want to call it. No getting away from it.

How can you have Duality/Multiplicity without Unity?

48. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by TheLayman
Re: Spherical G, I've always wondered why I hearsay this talk about the Sphere (or Circle) being the perfect form found in Nature. I've never found ordinary pi in Nature so where is the perfect Sphere / Circle in Nature? I'll stash that one away in my head for later.
Yeah.
Do you think that a "perfect" material exists?
How many entirely homogenous bodies exist that have been formed by gravity and have no other influence/ force acting on them?
Don't you think that differing materials have differing properties and thus resist gravity to differing extents?
I don't know........I find it interesting that, no matter how hard you try, you'll likely never find or create a perfectly round circle. There's always imperfections waiting.

Makes you wonder if there is finally that one finite, unchanging, discrete building block of matter/energy that everything is made of. I doubt it, myself.

Particles can theoretically be divided and further divided into smaller and smaller sub-particles ad infinitum. The Universe is finite infinity.......it's perfectness is in its completeness, something no one human can ever observe.

49. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
@TheLayman, The sphere exists in nature as the 3D form with the smallest surface area to volume ratio, which is why we have spherical bubbles, spherical droplets (really just an inverse bubble), spherical planets (if they weren't spinning), spherical stars, etc.

As for pi, as Dywyddyr mentioned, things are made from atoms, which aren't continuous, so no ordinary physical thing can be a perfect sphere/circle. But that really doesn't matter. Pi is a mathematical constant and isn't, in and of itself, part of the physical universe. The real physical universe is a messy place, so I'm not really sure why you'd expect to find anything like a perfect circle or sphere.
They aren't spheres. They are spheroid. Forever approaching the perfectness of a sphere, but never actually realizing it.

Atoms are spheroid. Soap bubbles. Planets. Stars. This is random?

50. Particles cannot be "infinitely divided" you eventually get to elementary particles that have no internal structure. Atoms are not necessarily spheroid, look up atomic orbital shapes. Soap bubbles are spheroid due to surface tension, planets and stars due to gravitational collapse, nothing random about it at all. If you are going to speculate it might be worth learning some of the basics first...

51. "On the spherical surface the construction also seems to promise success at the outset, and the smaller the radius of the disc in proportion to that of the sphere, the more promising it seems. But as the construction progresses it becomes more and more patent that the disposition of the discs in the manner indicated, without interruption, is not possible, as it should be possible by Euclidean geometry of the the plane surface. In this way creatures which cannot leave the spherical surface, and cannot even peep out from the spherical surface into three-dimensional space, might discover, merely by experimenting with discs, that their two-dimensional "space" is not Euclidean, but spherical space."

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7333/pg7333.html

52. LOL

53. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Particles cannot be "infinitely divided" you eventually get to elementary particles that have no internal structure. Atoms are not necessarily spheroid, look up atomic orbital shapes. Soap bubbles are spheroid due to surface tension, planets and stars due to gravitational collapse, nothing random about it at all. If you are going to speculate it might be worth learning some of the basics first...
"...you eventually get to elementary particles that have no internal structure....."

Can you show me?

54. Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Especially the "particle content" section

55. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Especially the "particle content" section
Ahh, yes. Thank you.

My fav is the meson. Don't know if anyone has actually seen a meson, but the Wiki definition is cool nonetheless. So why not?

Mesons are part of the hadron particle family, defined simply as particles composed of quarks.

How quirky! LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson

56. Then there's the anti-meson, the meson's counterpart(icle), which balances out the quarks with some antiquarks. Mind you, quarks themselves are not actually observable. So antiquarks are.......

And then the hypothetical tetraquark, which would be so exotic that it would lie outside the quirkiness of the quark model.

Don't know man, seems like particles can hypothetically be divided ad infinitum into........

57.

58. [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;530849]
Originally Posted by TheLayman
Do you think that a "perfect" material exists?
How many entirely homogenous bodies exist that have been formed by gravity and have no other influence/ force acting on them?
Don't you think that differing materials have differing properties and thus resist gravity to differing extents?
Not sure if perfect but certain forms do pop up again and again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_model

59. Originally Posted by PhDemon
LOL........I say you can IN THEORY divide a particle into sub-particles forever.

You say, no, eventually you get to elementary particles and give Wiki link.

Theoretically they're colliding neutrinos into each other at 99.9999% the speed of light at CERN, and for what? I'm sure the results are pleasing in theory, and for Wiki links, but who knows practically what they're looking for?

60. Originally Posted by TheLayman
LOL........I say you can IN THEORY divide a particle into sub-particles forever.
what theory states this ? what evidence is there for infinitely small particles ?

61. He's not here to learn he's just chain yanking. Ignore him, he'll get bored.

62. thank you. sometimes my chain is too easy to yank

63. Mine too but recently I've been trying really hard to ignore the loons and retards. I still occasionally let rip though

64. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Mine too but recently I've been trying really hard to ignore the loons and retards. I still occasionally let rip though
Occasionally?

65. Fair point I do TRY to ignore them then they post something so fatuous I can't resist pointing out just how bloody stupid it is then it kicks off :P

66. there should be a 'defenders of science' award given. the DOS award could be given out once per month to the member who defends best. i nominate PhDemon or Dywyddyr for the first award.

67. Theoretically, space can be infinitely divided. Just as the Universe can theoretically exist in an infinite number of multiverses. Not so sure what's the matter here

Suppose Homer wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.

One of Zeno's Paradoxes: Zeno’s Paradoxes*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

68. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by TheLayman
LOL........I say you can IN THEORY divide a particle into sub-particles forever.
what theory states this ? what evidence is there for infinitely small particles ?
See above.

What evidence is there for infinitely multiple multiverses or whatever the hell?

69. There are two versions of the dichotomy paradox. In the other version, before Homer could reach the stationary bus, he must reach half of the distance to it. Before reaching the last half, he must complete the next quarter of the distance. Reaching the next quarter, he must then cover the next eighth of the distance, then the next sixteenth, and so on. There are thus an infinite number of steps that must first be accomplished before he could reach the bus, with no way to establish the size of any "last" step

70. Originally Posted by TheLayman
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by TheLayman
LOL........I say you can IN THEORY divide a particle into sub-particles forever.
what theory states this ? what evidence is there for infinitely small particles ?
See above.

What evidence is there for infinitely multiple multiverses or whatever the hell?
space and matter are not the same so probably do not behave the same.

multiverse theory is pure speculation. even if specualtion is based on current scientific knowlege it is still speculation. nothing more.

71. Also the paradoxes you present can be resolved with high school calculus. You could try learning the basics before posting again...

72. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by TheLayman
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by TheLayman
LOL........I say you can IN THEORY divide a particle into sub-particles forever.
what theory states this ? what evidence is there for infinitely small particles ?
See above.

What evidence is there for infinitely multiple multiverses or whatever the hell?
space and matter are not the same so probably do not behave the same.

multiverse theory is pure speculation. even if specualtion is based on current scientific knowlege it is still speculation. nothing more.
Well, I was speculating in the opposite direction. Balance in all things.

Space and matter are likely not the same, but you can't have one without the other. After all the atom is ~99.999999% so-called "empty space"

73. Originally Posted by TheLayman
Balance in all things.
Why?

74. Originally Posted by TheLaymBlogger
Spew....
.

75. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Also the paradoxes you present can be resolved with high school calculus. You could try learning the basics before posting again...
Check the name. I don't pretend to be an expert. Certainly not a philosophical doctorate.

Spread the wealth. Why else would a person of such terrible learning be on a message board discussing physics?

Zeno's Paradoxes too elementary for your head...got it. It's Friday.......chill dude.

76. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by TheLayman
Balance in all things.
Why?
Why anti-matter to matter?

Why Electron to Proton?

I'm guessing without glue keeping things in balance, the whole UNIverse might fly right apart.

77. *hears toilet flushing * ah just more chain yanking...

78. Notice the thread topic.

My thought was: If the UNIverse can theoretically exist as a multiverse, ad infinitum, then can space also be be theoretically divided, ad infinitum?

Sorry to offend, fellas.

79. Originally Posted by TheLayman
I'm guessing without glue keeping things in balance
You're assuming, of course, that "balance" exists.
(E.g. where's the anti-matter to "balance" all the matter we know about?)

80. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by TheLayman
I'm guessing without glue keeping things in balance
You're assuming, of course, that "balance" exists.
(E.g. where's the anti-matter to "balance" all the matter we know about?)
Don't know, man.

But, cosmologists have determined the UNIverse's "shape" to be roughly "flat". Whatever that means. Like it's expanding and contracting all at the same time.

81. Originally Posted by TheLayman
My thought was: If the UNIverse can theoretically exist as a multiverse, ad infinitum, then can space also be be theoretically divided, ad infinitum?
the 'if' in this statement is pure specualtion. even assuming the 'if' part is true the 'then' part does not follow. a logic error.

82. Going back to spheres.............seems as though space is "simply connected", like a sphere is thought to be. AKA able to be divided ad infinitum?

If the fundamental dodecahedron is smaller than our horizon sphere, then the horizon sphere will “wrap around the universe” and intersect itself. This is most conveniently visualized in the universal covering space where repeating images of the horizon sphere intersect their neighbors. From our vantage point on Earth, at the center ofour horizon sphere we can see the same circle of intersection sitting on opposite sides of the sky. If the observed CMB temperature fluctuations depended only on plasma density fluctuations,then the two images, one in front of us and one behind us, would display identical temperature patterns.

That kind of balance?
http://www.ams.org/notices/200406/fea-weeks.pdf

83. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by TheLayman
My thought was: If the UNIverse can theoretically exist as a multiverse, ad infinitum, then can space also be be theoretically divided, ad infinitum?
the 'if' in this statement is pure specualtion. even assuming the 'if' part is true the 'then' part does not follow. a logic error.
Yes, well check the OP.

If multi-verse theory is correct (which it is looking ever more that it could be correct) i.e. an infinite number of parallel universes where every infinite possibility conceivable is played out then........

I was spit-ballling off that. My bad??

84. Originally Posted by TheLayman
Don't know, man.
But, cosmologists have determined the UNIverse's "shape" to be roughly "flat". Whatever that means. Like it's expanding and contracting all at the same time.
In other words your "balance" is entirely speculative.
And I have no idea what you mean by "expanding and contracting all at the same time", or why you imply that that's something (or anything) to do with flatness.
(Although I suspect that you're possibly misunderstanding what is meant by a flat universe).

85. "Presumably Zeno has in mind the view that spatial (and perhaps temporal) distances have a plurality of parts; parts which are infinitely divisible into two. Given that assumption, supposedly finite distances (or times) can be decomposed into an infinity of finite parts with no first (or alternatively, last) one."http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Dic

86. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by TheLayman
Don't know, man.But, cosmologists have determined the UNIverse's "shape" to be roughly "flat". Whatever that means. Like it's expanding and contracting all at the same time.
In other words your "balance" is entirely speculative.And I have no idea what you mean by "expanding and contracting all at the same time", or why you imply that that's something (or anything) to do with flatness.(Although I suspect that you're possibly misunderstanding what is meant by a flat universe).
Yes, I admit I don't know what "flat" means. How can we determine the "shape" of the Universe without being outside of the UNIverse with another to compare it with? How to narrow down the exact one location of any one Electron without another to compare it with? It seems uncertain.

Why so exasperated?

87. Originally Posted by TheLayman
"Presumably Zeno has in mind the view that spatial (and perhaps temporal) distances have a plurality of parts; parts which are infinitely divisible into two. Given that assumption, supposedly finite distances (or times) can be decomposed into an infinity of finite parts with no first (or alternatively, last) one."http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Dic
And the point of this would be...?

88. My balance is clearly not speculative. What holds the atom together?

89. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by TheLayman
"Presumably Zeno has in mind the view that spatial (and perhaps temporal) distances have a plurality of parts; parts which are infinitely divisible into two. Given that assumption, supposedly finite distances (or times) can be decomposed into an infinity of finite parts with no first (or alternatively, last) one."http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Dic
And the point of this would be...?
Scroll up.

90. Originally Posted by TheLayman
My balance is clearly not speculative. What holds the atom together?
The strong nuclear force.

91. Originally Posted by TheLayman
Yes, I admit I don't know what "flat" means. How can we determine the "shape" of the Universe without being outside of the UNIverse with another to compare it with?
here is a place to start Shape of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

92. Originally Posted by TheLayman
Yes, I admit I don't know what "flat" means.
And, evidently, you didn't bother to the read the provided link. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked:
How can we determine the "shape" of the Universe without being outside of the UNIverse with another to compare it with?
By the way, it's "universe", or "Universe" if at the start of a sentence.

How to narrow down the exact one location of any one Electron without another to compare it with? It seems uncertain.
What?

Why so exasperated?
Why are you making assumptions?

93. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Particles cannot be "infinitely divided" you eventually get to elementary particles that have no internal structure. Atoms are not necessarily spheroid, look up atomic orbital shapes. Soap bubbles are spheroid due to surface tension, planets and stars due to gravitational collapse, nothing random about it at all. If you are going to speculate it might be worth learning some of the basics first...
That's the point of posting Zeno.

94. Originally Posted by TheLayman
That's the point of posting Zeno.
In which case you missed the point.

95. Ha. .. there is just one Universe. I suspect it deserves capitalization.

96. What is the point Daffy? Boy one of us is dense.

97. Originally Posted by TheLayman
What is the point Daffy? Boy one of us is dense.
it is not the duck. you can take that to bank.

98. Originally Posted by TheLayman
What is the point Daffy? Boy one of us is dense.
I'll bet no one got that hilarious joke. Oh well

99. Originally Posted by TheLayman
Originally Posted by TheLayman
What is the point Daffy? Boy one of us is dense.
I'll bet no one got that hilarious joke. Oh well
http://atcosonline.com/files/images/...ts.preview.jpg

100. Originally Posted by AlexG
Originally Posted by TheLayman
My balance is clearly not speculative. What holds the atom together?
The strong nuclear force.
Yes, superficially-speaking, the strong nuclear force. Without balance, polarities would just be competing. Not attracted to one another. Why balance? Because the Universe is here. It is staying together somehow.

101. Originally Posted by TheLayman
Yes, superficially-speaking, the strong nuclear force.
The "non-superficial" explanation would be...?

Without balance, polarities would just be competing. Not attracted to one another. Why balance? Because the Universe is here. It is staying together somehow.
And a descent into word salad.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement