# The infinite possobilities presented by the infinite amount of probabilities

by dr.probable
Tags: infinite, possobilities, presented, probabilities
P: 1,262
I'm going to let most of the typos/grammatical errors go; but "per say" is "per se"

 Quote by dr.probable Now lets just right of the bat talk about the universe haveing a infinite volume
This is not necessarily the case.

 Quote by dr.probable The other idea I have connected to that now is if the universe itself is infinite that its mass cannot be defined can it?
I'm not sure if that is necessarily the case, but okay, lets say it is....

 Quote by dr.probable Now if the universe is infinite and has a infinite mass then would it not aswell have then a infinite amount of possobilitys because of the infinite amount of probabilitys?
I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking here. Do you mean, 'would the number of possible occurrences in the universe be infinite?' Based on the previous assumptions, yes it would---but note that this would not mean anything/everything could/would happen.

 Quote by dr.probable Now if there is a infinite amount of possobilities is there not a possobility of the same events re occuring since the were physically possible to occur in the first place?
The entire state of the universe could never be exactly the same a second time; but if you're referring to a particular incidence (like you hitting a home run a very certain way, at a certain place, etc) then there would be a certain finite probability of that happening again even if the universe wasn't infinite.

 Quote by dr.probable Which takes the mind into the realm of parallel universe's where this theory persay could be extended but that will only complicate things for now.
I don't see how this has anything to do with parallel universes.

 Quote by dr.probable is there not a infinite possobility of anything that could ever occur to occur and infinite amount of times?
No. Things forbidden by physical law will remain forbidden, but---given your premises---anything that could happen, [i]would[i] happen.
 P: 6 Alright well thanks for the premier response it was much apreciated and my apologies for my failure of gramar and latin skills its late in my neck of the woods and so i fault it on tierdness. for your second remark how could the universe not have a infinite volume how can you see a limitation on its volume when its volume is undefined I cant imagine there simply being a point where it does not continue alright well we would have to say it is I am only saying it is the case because this is the only thing I can conclude in my own mind I havent read or been presented with a more logical awnser to this point in time what im trying to say in this quote is that if both the mass and volume of the universe were infinite which I am obviously proposing here that there would be a infinite chance for anything to occur given it was physically possible to happen along a chain of events Now what im saying here is that it would be possible for somthing to occur to the exact , given if it was possible to get to that point in time in the first place.. like science if it can be done can it not theoretically be done again exactly? this relates to parellel universes in my mind because if it can happen again for a undefined amount of times would parellel universes not exist due to it being able to occur again and again and again ongoing in your conclusion you say "Things forbidden by physical law will remain forbidden," and thats what im saying everything that is not forbidden must occur because there is nothing stopping it from and there are infinite possobilitys for it to occur and in my conclusion thanks for the response and please right back if your not completly repulsed by my reply and again my apologies for being unclear and have quite a few spelling errors along the way
P: 1,262

## The infinite possobilities presented by the infinite amount of probabilities

 Quote by dr.probable how could the universe not have a infinite volume how can you see a limitation on its volume when its volume is undefined I cant imagine there simply being a point where it does not continue
Just because we don't know its volume, doesn't mean it doesn't have a finite one. I don't know how many oxygen atoms are in this room, but there is some number of them. I have a much harder time imagining an infinite universe---given that it seems the universe has expanded from a point outward for the last ~14 Gyrs.

If the universe is finite, that doesn't mean that you'll come to an 'edge' if you went far enough. More likely, you'd circle back to where you started (as if you were traveling on the surface of a sphere).

 Quote by dr.probable Now what im saying here is that it would be possible for somthing to occur to the exact , given if it was possible to get to that point in time in the first place.. like science if it can be done can it not theoretically be done again exactly?
It depends on what exactly you mean by "exactly." Because there is no such thing as a truly isolated system in the universe, for one thing to be 'exactly' the same as it was before---would require essentially the entire universe to be 'exactly' the same as it was. That's impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics (increase of entropy). But you're right, in that for any finite subset of objects, any finite sequence of events would be expected to occur again. (On a technical note: remember that probability can never exceed one; so in the limit that the age of the universe is infinite, the probability of any physically allowed event approaches one.)

 Quote by dr.probable this relates to parellel universes in my mind because if it can happen again for a undefined amount of times would parellel universes not exist due to it being able to occur again and again and again ongoing
No, because its happen again and again in the same universe that has had a certain history. They are not parallel, they're in series.

 Quote by dr.probable in your conclusion you say "Things forbidden by physical law will remain forbidden," and thats what im saying everything that is not forbidden must occur because there is nothing stopping it from and there are infinite possobilitys for it to occur
Absolutely. This is a popular principle (e.g. the "principle of plenitude," but it has been called many things; see for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenitude_principle) which does not require an infinite universe.

 Quote by dr.probable and in my conclusion thanks for the response and please right back if your not completly repulsed by my reply and again my apologies for being unclear and have quite a few spelling errors along the way
No, you have excellent questions. The reason I read these forums is for questions and ideas just like these; they're very inspiring, and insightful.
 PF Patron Sci Advisor P: 8,881 Renormalization is the short answer. That is how infinities are resolved in quantum theory. It is a messy business and not proven to be mathematically sound.
 P: 6 Your first point is very interesting indeed where you state "More likely, you'd circle back to where you started " It would be nice to hear you elaborate on that idea if you wouldent mind to. Another thing I find it hard to comprehend is your quote "Just because we don't know its volume, doesn't mean it doesn't have a finite one" to this I dont think its a matter of not knowing its volume its not being able to calculate it at all no matter if we were presented with all the information that could be given. In your second point you do note a very sound point I guess I was using the improper vocabulary when I was talking about "parellel universes" as I can see how that could be impossible to occur. I beileve what I was trying to state was more of a parellel section of the universe for instance all that we know and that effects us could it not be replicated given the universe was infinite in both mass and volume ( I understand that is still in question im only saying Given it was) When you say they are not parellel but in series that would have to be true but by remarking somthing to be parellel I was not stating it was parellel to our universe(section of our universe) in reletivity of where it was but in reletivity to the events that would take place in it I did read the link you have left and when you stated that this principle "does not require an infinite universe" but if it were to be infinite then would it not be repeating constantly an undifined amount of times? I thank you for your last response and hope to hear another if you have the time to do such a thing to simply clarify a few of your statments and carry on this conversation perhaps thank you again.
 P: 132 ahhhhhh infinity. My favorite debate. If time is infinite there is a infinite amount of time for a infinite amount of possibilties. If mass is infinite there is a infinite amount of worlds. We seem to think of infinity as only a concept, but the truth is how can anything exist out of nothing. Maybe infinity is the only logical conclusion. The problem is that all science is useless when it comes to infinity there for it will never be accepted.
P: 1,262
 Quote by dr.probable Your first point is very interesting indeed where you state "More likely, you'd circle back to where you started " It would be nice to hear you elaborate on that idea if you wouldent mind to.
I'm definitely not an expert on cosmology or differential geometry---and that's what you'd need to really explain this well. In essence, there are about a dozen possible (basic) geometries which could (to our knowledge) describe the shape of the universe. The main differences are open and closed, and flat or not-flat. In a closed universe (or at least some closed universes), and some types of flat universes, there aren't boundaries as in edges---but there are boundaries the constrain the overall size/volume. For instance, the universe could be like a mobius strip, which while flat, could circle back on itself. On the surface of a sphere (not-flat) you also circle back on yourself. Just imagine walking around the equator.

It most certainty doesn't have to be this way.

 Quote by dr.probable Another thing I find it hard to comprehend is your quote "Just because we don't know its volume, doesn't mean it doesn't have a finite one" to this I dont think its a matter of not knowing its volume its not being able to calculate it at all no matter if we were presented with all the information that could be given.
To one extent, the total universe will (so it seems) always be outside of the visible universe. The visible universe is everything within a sphere (relative to us) of radius the distance light can travel in the age of the universe. Thus the current visible-universe is about 13.7 billion light-years in radius; increasing by 1 light-year, every year. The entire universe is bigger than that; and we'll never be able to see/measure/observe/interact with anything outside of the 'visible universe.' In this way, we'll never be able to measure the size of the universe.

On the other hand, based on people's models of inflationary cosmology (e.g. the expansion after the big-bang), some people do come up with estimates for the spatial-size of the entire universe. Which---I think---is theoretically reasonable, while incredibly uncertain.

 Quote by dr.probable In your second point you do note a very sound point I guess I was using the improper vocabulary when I was talking about "parellel universes" as I can see how that could be impossible to occur. I beileve what I was trying to state was more of a parellel section of the universe for instance all that we know and that effects us could it not be replicated given the universe was infinite in both mass and volume ( I understand that is still in question im only saying Given it was)
Gotcha, so like a parallel-region of the universe. Yeah, if the universe was infinite in size and content, you would expect that any finite region of the universe, there would exist another finite region which was arbitrarily similar to the first.

 Quote by dr.probable I did read the link you have left and when you stated that this principle "does not require an infinite universe" but if it were to be infinite then would it not be repeating constantly an undifined amount of times?
At first I was thinking this would definitely not be the case, because entropy has to be increasing overall (a manifestation of the 'arrow of time') thus the universe as a whole would be evolving (and therefore never exactly the same).... but, if the universe was infinite, our definitions of entropy (and lots of other things) simply wouldn't apply to the universe as a whole.... so I have absolutely no idea.
P: 15,294
 Quote by zhermes Gotcha, so like a parallel-region of the universe. Yeah, if the universe was infinite in size and content, you would expect that any finite region of the universe, there would exist another finite region which was arbitrarily similar to the first.
Indeed, SciAm had an article a few years back that showed this was the case. It was eaily calculable how far away there was another Earth with another person just like yourself. It was something like 10^10^500 metres.

This has come up more than once here on PF.
P: 348
 Quote by dr.probable I cant see how that could simply be possible would that not be comparable to connecting a straight line to its origin?
Yes, that's correct.

 Quote by dr.probable This second point when you remark "To one extent, the total universe will (so it seems) always be outside of the visible universe" would that not be sudgesting subtly that the universe is infinite?
Not at all. It just means that the speed of light is not infinite. And the universe seems to expand faster than that. So, we are able to observe only that part of the universe which seems to be not in such hurry to get away from us.
 P: 6 Upisoft So you agree with me its not possible correct? "Not at all. It just means that the speed of light is not infinite. And the universe seems to expand faster than that. So, we are able to observe only that part of the universe which seems to be not in such hurry to get away from us." This makes sense I must have been confused by the visible universe and the reachable universe a simple error on my part my apologies. Aswell thanks for your contribution
P: 348
 Quote by dr.probable So you agree with me its not possible correct?
No, I agree with your explanation. The straight lines are closed lines with finite length.
 P: 6 Upisoft Im not sure quite exactly what your trying to say could you please elaborate more thanks in advance
P: 348
 Quote by dr.probable Upisoft Im not sure quite exactly what your trying to say could you please elaborate more thanks in advance
Just that what you see as straight line is not necessary straight line in some higher dimension. Straight lines on the surface(2D) of a sphere are circles in 3D (our space). If you walk on the sphere in a straight line, you would be circling around the sphere. So if you mark your stating point you will eventually come back to it. If you are not aware there is 3rd dimension it may sound strange. The same is possible for our space. It can be curved in any higher dimensional space.

 Related Discussions Beyond the Standard Model 2 Classical Physics 17 Cosmology 2 Beyond the Standard Model 5