Question about an infinite number of universes

[khanster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov's_zero-one_law

In probability theory, Kolmogorov's zero-one law, named in honor of Andrey Nikolaevich Kolmogorov, specifies that a certain type of event, called a tail event, will either almost surely happen or almost surely not happen; that is, the probability of such an event occurring is zero or one.

It seems that it will never be possible to travel back in time to the past because. we see no tourists from the future.

Likewise it seems that traveling to parallel universes will never be possible due to the fact that we see no tourists from alternate realities.

How can parallel universes be proved to reasonably exist if there is no way to observe them directly?

 

[Gallin]

Maybe one can only go as far back as the point in time that a "time machine" was made. That would explain the lack of future tourists.

 

[ThomasT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov's_zero-one_law
It seems that it will never be possible to travel back in time to the past because. we see no tourists from the future.

That seems like pretty lame reasoning to me. Why do you assume that I haven't seen any tourists from the future?

There are much much better reasons to assume that backward time travel is impossible.

Likewise it seems that traveling to parallel universes will never be possible due to the fact that we see no tourists from alternate realities.

What's a "parallel universe", and why do you assume that they exist?

How can parallel universes be proved to reasonably exist if there iis no way to observe them directly?

Nothing that can't be observed directly can be 'proved' to exist. Wrt parallel universes, they're either assumed to exist, based on certain reasoning, or not assumed to exist, based on certain reasoning.

 

[khanster]

That seems like pretty lame reasoning to me. Why do you assume that I haven't seen any tourists from the future?

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

The chronology protection conjecture is a conjecture by the physicist Professor Stephen Hawking that the laws of physics are such as to prevent time travel on all but sub-microscopic scales.

There are much much better reasons to assume that backward time travel is impossible.

Time travel to the past is an idea that generates logical problems. The universe appears to have built in laws that prevent certain paradoxes from occurring.

What's a "parallel universe", and why do you assume that they exist?

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

Parallel universe may refer to:

Science / Physics

* Multiverse, the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes

* The many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics

Nothing that can't be observed directly can be 'proved' to exist. Wrt parallel universes, they're either assumed to exist, based on certain reasoning, or not assumed to exist, based on certain reasoning.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/

The strange discovery by quantum physicists at the University of California Santa Barbara means that an object you can see in front of you may exist simultaneously in a parallel universe -- a multi-state condition that has scientists theorizing that traveling through time may be much more than just the plaything of science fiction writers.

And it's all because of a tiny bit of metal -- a "paddle" about the width of a human hair, an item that is incredibly small but still something you can see with the naked eye.

UC Santa Barbara's Andrew Cleland cooled that paddle in a refrigerator, dimmed the lights and, under a special bell jar, sucked out all the air to eliminate vibrations. He then plucked it like a tuning fork and noted that it moved and stood still at the same time.

Time travel paradoxes are resolved with the Everett Many Worlds Interpretation of multiple universes.


The question seems to be not IF we live in a multiverse, but what type of multiverse do we live in?

 

[yrreg]

What are the advantages of postulating multiple universes or infinite number of universes?

We already have the observable universe which according to astrophysicists started with the Big Bang.

This Big Bang theory has not apparently solved the question of whether it came from absolute nothing or it came from something that exists without (as opposed to within) time and space.

Logically absolute nothing cannot give rise to something, so the observable universe which started with the Big Bang must have come from something without (as opposed to within) the observable universe which according to the Big Bang theory had a beginning.

There are writers who expound on the idea that the observable universe the one where we are situated in could have come from absolute nothing.

They would start from nothing, absolute nothing, but sooner than later they would bring in something which already is against their original starting point of absolute nothing.

For example I just read earlier today the exposition of a writer who tried to show that the observable universe could and therefore did come from absolute nothing.

He said that we would start with absolute nothing, but immediately he described the absolute nothing as infinite nothing.

That is already illogical, because if you start from absolute nothing then you must stop there right away, and no longer are you allowed to even describe the nothing as infinite nothing, because once there is only absolute nothing, then all further discourse is no longer legitimate logically.

If you slip in anything at all to describe the absolute nothing, right away you are engaging in sleight of hand manipulations of words and concepts, and that is not science and not philosophy but trickery.


Now with the speculative multiverse or parallel universes they might seemingly give rise to our observable universe which started with the Big Bang.

But then that would be allowing something that is purely speculative to give rise to something that is not speculative but actaully real, the observable universe where we are situated in and which according to astrophysicists has a beginning.

If you start with a speculative something as the cause of something else, then both of them are speculative and neither one of them even the second one can become actual or can pass from the status of speculation to the status of realization.

However, even granting though not conceding that such universes exist, they will have to have begun from something without (as opposed to within) themselves, so they will face the same trouble as with our observable universe, which on empirical considerations and inferential thinking came about at the moment of the Big Bang.

The solution to all these problems seems to consist in postulating an infinite regression of universes, then there is no more trouble about what gave rise to what.

However, logically if we postulate an infinite regression of universes, and since infinite means no beginning, then these universes never began, so we will have even proven that our observable universe which started at the Big Bang never arrived, because the infinite regression of universes never had a beginning, infinite meaning without beginning, so they never got started to exist.


Now with theists the problem is a no brainer.

Theists postulate a necessary being who started everything with a beginning but Himself never has any beginning, because He is in his essence pure existence and thus the source of all existnence that has a beginning.

And that is why theists like myself define the concept of God as the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning.




Yrreg

 

[khanster]

Now with theists the problem is a no brainer.

Theists postulate a necessary being who started everything with a beginning but Himself never has any beginning, because He is in his essence pure existence and thus the source of all existnence that has a beginning.

And that is why theists like myself define the concept of God as the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning.

Yrreg

Complex systems can arise from very simple initial conditions. An existential substrate forming the basis of all existence appears to be necessary but there is no reason to stipulate an ultimate existence to be an intelligent entity.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Complex systems can arise from very simple initial conditions. An existential substrate forming the basis of all existence appears to be necessary but there is no reason to stipulate an ultimate existence to be an intelligent entity.

Also no reason to stipulate that it isn't an intelligent entity.

I mean, what sort of expression of intelligence on that scale do you think human can perceive?

 

[khanster]

Sean Carroll has a very interesting idea for the arrow of time and multiple universes.



http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/

 

[khanster]

Also no reason to stipulate that it isn't an intelligent entity.

I mean, what sort of expression of intelligence on that scale do you think human can perceive?

Stiplating an intelligent entity as the genesis of all creation appears to be an added supposition that is not necessary, if, complex systems[like universes with intelligent beings] can arise via random fluctuations.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Stiplating an intelligent entity as the genesis of all creation appears to be an added supposition that is not necessary, if, complex systems[like universes with intelligent beings] can arise via random fluctuations.

Not necessary. Neither is the stipulation that it isn't intelligent.

What we need aren't stipulations but verifiable fact. I doubt either side has either. Occam's razor applies in all situations like intuition about finite numbers applies to the infinite or intuition about classical mechanics applies to quantum mechanics. It makes sense, it's often true, but in the end, it's an induction about hypotheses in general rather than deduction.

 

[khanster]

Not necessary. Neither is the stipulation that it isn't intelligent.

What we need aren't stipulations but verifiable fact. I doubt either side has either. Occam's razor applies in all situations like intuition about finite numbers applies to the infinite or intuition about classical mechanics applies to quantum mechanics. It makes sense, it's often true, but in the end, it's an induction about hypotheses in general rather than deduction.

Falsifiability is a very important criterion for testing a hypothesis:

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

Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method. Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas.

 

[phoenixthoth]

At this point it appears the following two claims are not falsifiable.

The ultimate reality is intelligent.
The ultimate reality is not intelligent.

 

[khanster]

At this point it appears the following two claims are not falsifiable.

The ultimate reality is intelligent.
The ultimate reality is not intelligent.

Intelligence is an emergent property that requires energy from an outside source while non-intelligence is the status-quo of empty regions of space-time.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Intelligence is an emergent property that requires energy from an outside source while non-intelligence is the status-quo of empty regions of space-time.

The software that our brains run on is an instantiation of an abstract entity without energy yet our intelligence resides within the software. The hardware is dumb but fast.

 

[khanster]

The software that our brains run on is an instantiation of an abstract entity without energy yet our intelligence resides within the software. The hardware is dumb but fast.

It is more reasonable to assume that intelligence emerges from the computational meat of the brain rather than to suppose that mind is somehow separate from the meat...

 

[phoenixthoth]

Assume?

 

[khanster]

Assume?

I suppose we can ask the question "is reality made of math?"

We observe certain consistencies and redundancies in the manifold structure of reality that bolsters such an impression.

If reality is made of math, where do we begin to start in the construction of the correspondence?

 

[phoenixthoth]

You do realize that in a few hours it will be January 1st and this thread will (unfortunately) probably be locked for not meeting PF's criteria?

There is of course a time and a place for academic rigor. That is, for me, the final stage of an idea. The initial stage of an idea is something that "pops into your head." There needs to be a place where this stage of ideas can be explored. If you're reading this and want an unstructured place to post whatever pops into your head, try visiting http://www.alphaomegadimension.info/forum/index.php" discussion forum.

I suppose we can ask the question "is reality made of math?"

We observe certain consistencies and redundancies in the manifold structure of reality that bolsters such an impression.

If reality is made of math, where do we begin to start in the construction of the correspondence?

One starting place is to look at what exact mathematical structure could be a TOE.

 

[khanster]

You do realize that in a few hours it will be January 1st and this thread will (unfortunately) probably be locked for not meeting PF's criteria?

There is of course a time and a place for academic rigor. That is, for me, the final stage of an idea. The initial stage of an idea is something that "pops into your head." There needs to be a place where this stage of ideas can be explored. If you're reading this and want an unstructured place to post whatever pops into your head, try visiting http://www.alphaomegadimension.info/forum/index.php" discussion forum.



One starting place is to look at what exact mathematical structure could be a TOE.

I think I will stay here, learn and respect the rules and use them to my advantage.

...and make sure rigormortis doesn't set in :rofl:

 

[phoenixthoth]

I have a usenet group or two I use for that purpose. But this place was always one of my first homes on the internet. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with structured discussion.

 

[khanster]

I have a usenet group or two I use for that purpose. But this place was always one of my first homes on the internet. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with structured discussion.

Anyone who can survive usenet has my respect

 

[khanster]

One starting place is to look at what exact mathematical structure could be a TOE.

Math appears to be a very concise language with much information contained in its symbols when compared to a written language like English.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Anyone who can survive usenet has my respect

well, the cranks and trolls survive too, and they are tenacious if nothing else.

Math appears to be a very concise language with much information contained in its symbols when compared to a written language like English.

Well, if I say the word love, that bunch of symbols encompasses a lot.
But I see what you're getting at and I agree.

 

[Evo]

Hey phoenixthoth, long time no see. Yeah, this thread is going down. If people wish to discuss the topic tomorrow, they can open a new thread under the new guidelines.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Will there be any place on PF where freethought (such as this, about science with some basic guidlines) is allowed?

 

[Evo]

Will there be any place on PF where freethought (such as this, about science with some basic guidlines) is allowed?

The new rules will be tweaked as we see what is a true benefit and what's not. This will actually be a great time for members to help shape what the new Philosophy forum will become.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Sounds good.

I might start posting here instead of the usenet groups, given the new structuring.

I have some thoughts on a TOE but it will be interpreted as freethought, me thinks. But it is actually refined and I can cite sources. Where would this thread go presently?

 

[Evo]

Sounds good.

I might start posting here instead of the usenet groups, given the new structuring.

I have some thoughts on a TOE but it will be interpreted as freethought, me thinks. But it is actually refined and I can cite sources. Where would this thread go presently?

If you feel like trying, you could see if it meets Independent Research requirements.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Ok, thanks.
Newbie question: which section?
edit: never mind I found it.
edit: my theory isn't testable by experiment. it's a mathematical approach to a TOe as described by max tegmark. It is new tho, as far as I can tell.
Is there an independent research section in math *looks*

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

Logically absolute nothing cannot give rise to something, so the observable universe which...

Have you studied the Fourier transform ? :tongue:

 

[khanster]

It seems highly unlikely that other copies of "us" exist in an inflationary multiverse scenario.

The fluctuations that give rise to different universes would evolve differently would they not?

The infinite monkey theorem seems to agree concerning the improbability of a monkey typing out Hamlet in a finite amount of time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#Probabilities

Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys typing from now until the heat death of the universe, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10^183,800