Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Infinite-infinite universe explains all

  1. Feb 28, 2005 #1
    This thread is proposing the infinite-infinite universe where all conceivable possibilities exist within our infinite universe. This theory completely allows any contradiction within it's terms because that would be just another possibility (or combination) so a red planet exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Anyways the theory is COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY and makes no attempt as to limit the contradictions. IF every conceivable idea, concept, matter, universe, planet etc. exists then there is no need for any explanations of anything since everything is just a given combination from the infinite amount of combinations. You need to explain something if there is only one possible path within a multitude, but in the infinite-infinite universe all the paths are simultaneously present including no paths and only a few (there goes the contradicton which is acceptable). This is somewhat an aesthetical view of the universe.

    The theory of the infinite-infinite universe is the theory where everything including all contradictions are present and acceptable.

    I also want to add that you must be careful as to what you are referring the infinite to. If you are referring to an infinite universe in space extension or time extension but within the physical laws of our universe as known so far, then all these weird possibilities (planet of elephants) are most likely not possible. But if you refer to an infinite universe in terms of "possibilities", "concepts", "laws of physics", "combinations" in other words an infinite universe in terms of all possible "concepts" conceivable, then you are no longer dealing with the realm of physics but metaphysics and philosophy and thus the infinite-infinite universe with all its acceptable contradictions.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 28, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So you're not proposing an unnecessary theory. That's helpful. :rolleyes:
  4. Feb 28, 2005 #3
    This is the ultimate theory. The grand unified of physics etc. because by accepting an infinite universe in all possible concepts like combinatorial, conceptual etc. (therefore not only in dimensions or time) you automatically get everything. Therefore for example the presence of life in one slice of the universe is brought about through the theory of evolution, in another it just pops out all done out of nowhere, because it is just another conceptual combination.

    Actually if you think of how many quirk chances have to be met for us humans here to communicate through the net using are traditional scientific explanations, this confirms the theory. There are just too many combination of elements and chemical reactions and evolutions of mankind to possibly be done in a few billion years. Why does our planet have just the right amount of metals and extractable just in the right combination for humans? How did humans even possibly develope science when we know that in primitive societies no one has any kind of individuality or inventiveness because peer pressure of the group is extremely high, so even science is a really long shot quirk chance. It is like trying to explain the appearance of a color TV on mars without the humans. But if you accept the infinite-infinite universe it is all explained as being just another combination. It is like trying to explain how a color TV evolved on mars from scratch. You could probably invent some insanely impobable combination of events that ultimately bring you your TV but it is less far out to just accept an infinite-infinite universe where it is all present.

    Explanations are just washed away by the shear number of combinations.
    Cause and effect is just one possible mechanism amongst an infinite combination of inventions of mechanisms.
  5. Feb 28, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If your theory is accepted, it isn't accepted nor is it a theory, and everything you've said is false and isn't false, but that isn't a problem since it wasn't said.
  6. Feb 28, 2005 #5
    I agree with you. But sooner or later somewhere in our quest for the ultimate you will have to deal with contradictions. So this theory makes no attempt to avoid them but considers them an integral part since infinity contains all including contradictory elements. It is hard to graps but this is the ultimate last theory. All explanations are an aesthetical device.
  7. Feb 28, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You want to deal with contradictions by making them true. Why not deal with contradictions by making them false?
  8. Feb 28, 2005 #7
    This is an aesthetical choice. Both combinations are present choose the one you like. Both are true and false etc ...
  9. Feb 28, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Is being alive the same as being dead? Is being you the same as not being you?
  10. Mar 1, 2005 #9
    Amongst the infinite combination of universes there is a universe where being alive is the same as being dead etc. We are only in one particular combination where this is not true. In our local slice the laws of physics are operating. Of course there are all kinds of permutations and you can envision a slice that is half like our universe and half like one where alive and dead is the same etc.

    We can't grasp all the combinations and the contradictions, but if the universe is infinite conceptually, then the infinite-infinite universe is the final theory.
  11. Mar 1, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I suppose there's no test then for determining whether a given theory is true.?
    What do you think of (what I guess you could call) logical principles, like the Laws of Non-contradiction, Excluded Middle, Identity, etc.?

    Actually, it seems you're saying that certain sets of laws hold in "local slices". So you aren't necessarily challenging other theories about the laws in this local slice; You're just adding on some hypothetical other slices, yes? Is there any reason to think these other slices exist?
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2005
  12. Mar 1, 2005 #11
    your theory is much like parallel worlds theory...just one thing bothered me about that one, and I think It applies to this one, too...

    if there is infinity as you put it, how then we are in such a linear universe? the laws of physics etc...

    perhaps because with consciousness also come it's limitations to just view one slice out of everything. because, I think, If universe was infinite (even only in physical terms) everything would be happening all the time. All the parallel worlds would exists at the same time at the same place, the name of place is of course infinity.

    only one thing makes difference for us about the time and physical reality as we see it and this infinity...our consciousness. which is, obviously, not made of infinity?, because if it was, the door of perception would be open for us and we would see / be infinite...

    doooooooh! I always hated this question! it's infinite!
  13. Mar 1, 2005 #12
    What may be confusing is the word "infinite". I am referring to infinity "conceptually", that is every possible idea, implementation mechanism etc. along with infinite extension in space or time. But it is maybe better to imagine a universe of all possible "possibilities" or all possible "concepts" more then extensions. That is why the theory doesn't challenge any of our science, it is just a superset of universes with along all imaginable concepts. It is different from the parallel universe theories because they are somehow tied up with our physics, but this is a superset of all possible physics. I would say that it is more a philosophical and metaphysical idea and cannot be proved scientifically in any way I think.
  14. Mar 1, 2005 #13
    Not only does it not challenge any science, it offers nothing to science. Or hadn't you managed to notice that lack. :biggrin: I get the feeling you like mind games. :rofl:

    Have fun -- Dick
  15. Mar 1, 2005 #14
    As an analogy it is like when they discovered the zero. No one noticed that there could be an entity that is zero. This is similar in that this theory proposes a kind of totally full set of every conceivable idea, possibility etc. It is even hard to explain exactly because it is infinite exactly in the "conceptual" sense.
  16. Mar 2, 2005 #15
    We should be so lucky.
  17. Mar 2, 2005 #16
    Infinite-Infinite-Infinite Universe

    I would like to suggest that the 'Infinite-Infinite Universe' would be even more infinite if it were renamed the 'Infinite-Infinite-Infinite Universe.' One can never have too many infinites. The more obscure the better.

    At the '3 -Infinite' level one rises above the need for empirical evidence and enters the Cosmic Universe of Complete Oblivion. Keep up the good work.
  18. Mar 3, 2005 #17
    I think you need the Infinite Improbability Drive in your Heart of Gold.

    And if that's not good enough:
  19. Mar 3, 2005 #18
    In fact you can have an 5-infinite universe etc.

    It is actually a very abstract theory. Remeber the infinite I am proposing is the "FULL SET" of all conceivable possibilities , cnocepts , universes, laws etc.
    It is not any kind of material or mathematical infinity and not tied to our universe or laws pf physics. We are just in a small slice of the universe where all our science and logic is coherent and correct. There is another slice where some laws are different and since the possible combinations are endless then you have an infinite universe "CONCEPTUALLY". Of course you end up with all kinds of contradictions, but this is totally acceptable.
    That is why any explanation becomes just another "invention" and therefore an "aesthetical" object.
    Is the theory uselful? I don't know., was zero useful in mathematics?
    I think the theory confuses because we have to imagine the other slice "somewhere" but it IS anywhere in any kind of explanation or in any design or invention you want because it is all contained in our infinite-infinite universe.

    The theory is true and demonstrated because it accepts all contradictions within it, even the fact that it is false. It is at this point that we can hardly behold the infinite-infinite universe because it is the only thing that is definitely true! Contradictory item is the only one that is true. OF course all logical discorse falls apart, and you can say nothing or everything, but it is like the zero. The "FULL SET" wherever it is.

    I can also say that the theory is false because "I SAY SO" and therefore overide the "FULL SET"; such is the extension of this set...but the set doesn't exits ETC. ETC........
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2005
  20. Mar 3, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yeah, your theory introduces zero alright. :wink: Seriously, there's no comparison there. Can explain what "conceptually infinite" means?
  21. Mar 4, 2005 #20
    Every conceivable thing imaginable. It is like having a superset where you have both a universe that has the FULL SET and one that doesn't. But the superset can't be seen as having a spatial extension because since all contradictions are allowed you can have that the superset exists and doesn't or that the superset is contained in the universe that doesn't have the FULL SET. Even the concepts of containment, larger and smaller, existence etc. fall apart.

    The point is if the universe exceeds our "LOGIC" than anything is possible.
  22. Mar 4, 2005 #21


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Okay, I guess I should have asked for a coherent definition, but that's okay- nevermind. If you find your theory appealing, great. What bothers me is that you seem to think you gain something by allowing contradictions free reign. Some people incorporate contradiction into their belief structure (in some way or another), but the way you're going about it doesn't allow any structure to be built at all. That may be exactly what you want, but if you're open to considering a similar but workable solution, you can google combinations of "contradiction" and "Buddhism" or "Taoism" or read the discussion starting at post #19 here.
  23. Mar 4, 2005 #22
    11-infinite universe

    The 5-infinite universe was an amazing achievement. However, the abstruse abstraction of the 'multiple infinites' could well be the '11-infinite' universe. It would then be a logical, simple step to merge this concept with the 11 dimensions of M-Theory to arrive at the Cosmic state of quintessential subliminal essence. Perhaps we are nearing the Holy Grail of the Ultimate-Ultimate?
  24. Mar 5, 2005 #23
    That is one combination contained in the FULL SET so it is correct and exists. The FULL SET itself exists and doesn't exist at the same time contains everything and everything contains it etc. etc. Even the concepts of containment, smaller larger, existence all become very hard to pin down because the set of all possibilities is so vast..... Even the combination where this theory is false and the set doesn't exist is within the set itself ......
    It is like when they discovered the zero. No one ever thought about the FULL SET.
  25. Mar 5, 2005 #24
    Unfull Set?

    I am afraid I have some bad news. If the FULL SET can exist and doesn't exist at the same time, then it has become a NEGATIVE ZERO. This is very serious because, becoming a Negative ZERO means it exists outside the FULL SET. This means the FULL SET really is not full. It's like discovering the NEGATIVE ZERO and realizing the FULL SET can never really be FULL.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2005
  26. Mar 5, 2005 #25
    Your 'REALITY' is heavy and anyone who wants to form part of it would be permanetly entertained. In other words, explain nothing......just go with the flow until whatever happens happens!

    Well, I wouldn't want to participate in such a reality. It is yours ....you own it....Please keep it! Afterall, the whole essence of the INTELLIGIBILITY OF REALITY is to always make an ettempt to explain things, clarify things in order to make sense of life itself, however difficult this process may be. Infact, you are advising people to do what is fundamentally against nature in our own world. As problematic as things may sometimes be, Nature is always attempting to order things in their causal and mutational pathways!

    Ok, I agree with you to a point that the POSSIBLE WORLD LOGIC (PWL) (or Possible World Semantics (PWS) as it is sometimes called) does substantially permit us to imginatively create our ideal worlds, yet there is nothing in that same logic that tells us that even if it were arguably possible to choose any of such worlds in our vivid imaginations that it is in actuality possible to physically create every one of it. Choice, perhaps yes, but physical possibility, potentially no!

    Like I said, count me out of such a spooky reality!
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook