Eternal Inflation Time Will End

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kevin_Axion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inflation Time
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a recent paper on Eternal Inflation that argues if time is infinite, all events must occur an infinite number of times, undermining probability theory. Critics challenge this notion by illustrating that even within infinite sets, such as natural numbers, probabilities can still be assigned meaningfully. They argue that while the set of natural numbers is infinite, it is possible to define probabilities for subsets, such as numbers divisible by 10 or 100. The conversation highlights the tension between the paper's conclusions and established concepts in probability theory. Ultimately, the debate underscores the complexities of applying probability to infinite scenarios in the context of cosmological theories.
Kevin_Axion
Messages
912
Reaction score
3
Eternal Inflation "Time Will End"

This paper came out last week and looks very interesting but of course relies on M-Theory: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4698
 
Space news on Phys.org


The argument the authors use is that if time is infinite, all events that are not prohibited are possible. From this observation the authors seem to conclude that if all possible events must occur and must occur an infinite number of times, then the method of assigning probabilities is "undermined." If I understand this argument correctly, it is simply wrong.

The point is easily made with the natural numbers. They are an infinite set. The set of all even numbers is also infinite; so is the set of every 10th number, every 100th number and every 100^{100} th number. Moreover each of these sets has the same cardinality. Nevertheless it is quite possible to assign the probability of a random number. We can say, for example, that numbers divisible by 100 are only one tenth as likely as those divisible by 10 when sampling from an arbitrarily large or even "infinite" set.
 
Last edited:


SW VandeCarr said:
The argument the authors use is that probability theory and science itself is not possible if time is infinite because all events that are not prohibited are possible. From this observation the authors seem to conclude that since all possible events must occur and must occur an infinite number of times, we cannot assign probabilities to events; there is no basis for measurement and science is therefore impossible.


I took a glance at paper, and although it is interesting, that was my first doubt also. How come that probabillity sort of works in our world? Maybe I don't understand something.
 


Calimero said:
I took a glance at paper, and although it is interesting, that was my first doubt also. How come that probabillity sort of works in our world? Maybe I don't understand something.

Did you follow my argument in the second paragraph of my post? If not, I'll try to explain further. These are generally accepted concepts regarding infinite sets, on which probability theory is based. Note important distributions like the Gaussian are infinite but the integral of the probability distribution function is unity.

EDIT: I edited the first paragraph of my original post since some of the things I said were not explicitly expressed in the paper.
 
Last edited:


SW VandeCarr said:
The point is easily made with the natural numbers. They are an infinite set. The set of all even numbers is also infinite; so is the set of every 10th number, every 100th number and every 100^{100} th number. Moreover each of these sets has the same cardinality. Nevertheless it is quite possible to assign the probability of a random number. We can say, for example, that numbers divisible by 100 are only one tenth as likely as those divisible by 10 when sampling from an arbitrarily large or even "infinite" set.
This is wrong. It is not possible to have a uniform probability distribution over the natural numbers.
 


chronon said:
This is wrong. It is not possible to have a uniform probability distribution over the natural numbers.

If you read my post, I'm not talking about the probability of selecting a given number. I'm talking about the probabilities of selecting numbers wholly divisible by 10, 100, 1000, etc. as examples. If you take finite random samples of size N from the set of natural numbers, the relative proportions of such numbers in the sample will tend to match the frequency in the set as N grows large. In probability theory this holds even if the set being sampled is infinite provided you can define the set by induction. So the probability of selecting a number divisible by 10 is 0.1.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top