15 Sep 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThat doesn't help your case. Here, let's start with a question. When you claim for some X, that P=1 for X, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that X had to be the case, of necessity? Or, rather, do you mean merely that X is in fact the case?
incorrect. that is not my argument.
a more correct interpretation given the condition you describe here: if the event occurs in which a kitten eats a hamburger, that it must be necessary fact that the event of a kitten eating a hamburger will occur again. but that is too specific. if we regard it instead on more general terms, as the event in which one being consumes another, we may expand the conditions of the event to repeat infinitely.
16 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]There are several things wrong with this, the event you are saying has P=1 is the creation of this universe with the big bang.
you are then going on to say that because the conditions were right for this once, then they must be right again*infinity.
this doesn't hold true.
for example. the universe could be following the bang, crunch,bang... model, where big bang is followed by big crunch and then rebound. this universe could in that instance be the entirety of everything, and it simply changes its state throughout time, with successive bangs and crunches.
No other universe would exist.
not true. in the case that you're describing, you've just relabeled the conditions. if the model follows a bang, crunch, bang pattern, than that pattern has a probability of 1 and the event will re-occur infinitely. so you would have an infinite number of universes following a bang/crunch/bang pattern.
the fallacy is positing a space in which the big bang occurred which could have properties which could lead to big bangs occurring. You have no evidence for, nor information about, this hypothesised space. it is neither necessarily required to
exist, nor is it required to have the properties you ascribe to it.
it might have existed Until the big bang at which point it got transformed into the universe we see today....
it's not a hypothesis or evidence based observation. it's a logical truism. any event with a probability of 1 will repeat for eternity. this does not mean the exact same event will repeat for eternity, though it may.
Secondly, you suggest that any persons in your hypothesised other universes would be by definition supernatural.
I disagree, as they are natural consequences of their universes. and the multiverse of universes would be part of nature.
thus they would not be supernatural.
you would have to redefine nature for the above to hold true.
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by bbarrfor the class of event X with P=1, X will reoccur infinitely.
That doesn't help your case. Here, let's start with a question. When you claim for some X, that P=1 for X, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that X had to be the case, of necessity? Or, rather, do you mean merely that X is in fact the case?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou are trying to 'prove' the existence of a multiverse via logical reasoning alone.Originally posted by googlefudge
There are several things wrong with this, the event you are saying has P=1 is the creation of this universe with the big bang.
you are then going on to say that because the conditions were right for this once, then they must be right again*infinity.
this doesn't hold true.
for example. the univer t be supernatural.
you would have to redefine nature for the above to hold true.
This should be self evidently not possible, implying either something wrong with your postulates or your logical argument.
In this case you have a flawed/unjustified postulate.
You are assuming event P happens in a space that has properties that can lead to event P occurring.
Further more you are requiring this space to be infinite (probably both spatially and temporally, but at least infinite in one of the two)
However, my point about the bouncing universe with nothing outside it is that there IS no space for event P to occur in.
Infinite or otherwise.
You have to justify your assumption that this space exists and has the properties you require of it for your argument to stand up.
If there is an infinite space in which universes can be born that has properties that can lead to universes forming then yes this space
would be host to an infinite number of universes....
However we can't yet justify positing the existence of this space.
It may well do, and there are a host of hypothesises that include it.... they have yet to be tested/proven.
And no the regular definition of nature will suffice.
Assuming we are not putting god or some advanced aliens in this giant meta space and it is creating universes, then the processes creating these
universes are natural. thus the universes and the laws within them are also natural.
They are simply consequences of the laws of the multiverse.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by Zahlanziif the universe is infinite, then there are an infinite number of worlds in it with cars,
my car exploded. therefore, the probability of that event is one. will my car explode again? infinitely?
meaning an infinite number of cars will explode.
He isn't saying your car will explode and infinite number of times, but that in an
infinite universe the event of a car exploding (and that that car will belong to identical
copies of you, will happen an infinite number of times.)
This does however require an infinite universe, this is not a given, which is where his
argument fails.
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgejust because something is infinite, doesn't mean that a finite part of it is infinite (man that made my brain hurt).
if the universe is infinite, then there are an infinite number of worlds in it with cars,
meaning an infinite number of cars will explode.
He isn't saying your car will explode and infinite number of times, but that in an
infinite universe the event of a car exploding (and that that car will belong to identical
copies of you, will happen an infinite ...[text shortened]... however require an infinite universe, this is not a given, which is where his
argument fails.
[-1, 1] may be infinite but still there is only one 0 in it.
even if the universe would be infinite, which i agree with you is nowhere near proven, and i personally believe it is not, it does not follow that there should be an infinite number or worlds on which cars explode. not to mention that i asked whether the same car could explode an infinite number of times.
maybe we should let the dude clarify because right now, i believe his claims are so preposterous that both you and me are twisting them in order to make sense of them.
16 Sep 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritBut that was supposed to be your conclusion; that's what was supposed to follow from facts about probability. Now you're saying that it's just part of the concept of probability that something with P=1 will infinitely recur. But you've given no argument to that effect, or even a reason to take seriously this really severe departure from the standard usage of the term 'probability'.
for the class of event X with P=1, X will reoccur infinitely.
17 Sep 11
Originally posted by bbarrwell yes, i am discussing the concept. i can't prove there are infinite universes, nor ever made the claim of proving such. but it is something that logically holds true and if we ever improve our instruments to a point where we can explore locations outside of our universe (the supernatural) then it will be proven.
But that was supposed to be your conclusion; that's what was supposed to follow from facts about probability. Now you're saying that it's just part of the concept of probability that something with P=1 will infinitely recur. But you've given no argument to that effect, or even a reason to take seriously this really severe departure from the standard usage of the term 'probability'.
17 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
You are trying to 'prove' the existence of a multiverse via logical reasoning alone.
This should be self evidently not possible, implying either something wrong with your postulates or your logical argument.
i'm not trying to prove the existence of a multiverse, i'm stating that logically, there must be a multiverse, or more specifically, multiple universes, since a multiverse implies a connected family of universes.
In this case you have a flawed/unjustified postulate.
probability is not flawed.
You are assuming event P happens in a space that has properties that can lead to event P occurring.
Further more you are requiring this space to be infinite (probably both spatially and temporally, but at least infinite in one of the two)
However, my point about the bouncing universe with nothing outside it is that there IS no space for event P to occur in.
Infinite or otherwise.
no, space as we know it is necessarily a part of this universe. my theory of space (i don't know if it's originally mine) is that it is an 'ether' of the most basic particles. as those particles join together, space shrinks and energy/matter comes into existence. this will likely continue until a big 'crunch' in which all space shrinks back to a single solid point of matter, where the cycle will repeat. however, the logical truism is not dependent on any theory. rather, the theory is built upon the logic.
having said that, the universe can be described as a self contained 'bubble,' and other universes would necessarily be self contained in their own 'bubble' complete with their own 'space.' and state of expansion or contraction.
You have to justify your assumption that this space exists and has the properties you require of it for your argument to stand up.
my justification is probability.
It may well do, and there are a host of hypothesises that include it.... they have yet to be tested/proven.
they are a long way from being proven. such is not the scope of this discussion.
Assuming we are not putting god or some advanced aliens in this giant meta space and it is creating universes, then the processes creating these
universes are natural. thus the universes and the laws within them are also natural.
They are simply consequences of the laws of the multiverse.
i am not postulating who are what processes is creating these universes, only that they must reoccur due to probability. 'nature' is defined as anything which occurs within the natural laws of a universe. anything outside of the universe, especially anything that can interact with the universe in some way is by definition supernatural.
this definition of supernatural, according to webster:
1.of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.
the other definitions are not useful for this discussion. my initial statement concerning the supernatural is based on this definition.
