This does not make any sense.
If there are an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2, all you are doing is naming a set of universes with a constricted naming convention, and the set of universes is still infinite, thus contains any possible universe including an infinite number with an exact replica of you, an infinite number with a slightly different version of you, and an infinite number where you do not exist.
Just because constrained infinities of certain kinds of numbers can be nested within other infinities of unconstrained, or less constrained infinities of universes does not mean that somehow this has applications to multiverse theory.
If the given assumption is ‘there are an infinite number of alternate universes’ then the fact that fractions between 1 and 2 are an infinite set has literally no logical ability to mandate that this would somehow constrain the nature of previously established infinity of universes.
The possibilities of an infinite set of universes would be ultimately constrained by all possible sets of the laws of physics that allow any kind of universe to exist.
We already know that we live in a universe where humans exist, so, again, there will thus be an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of variations of you exist, and and infinite number where you do not exist.
EDIT: Here is maybe another way of looking at this.
There are an infinite number of positive integers.
There are also an infinite number of even integers, as well as odd integers.
The set of all odd integers contains half the number of all integers, though both are still infinite.
The set of all odd integers is constrained by the rule of none of its constituents are cleanly divisible by two.
But the fact that you can arbitrarily chose a rule to constrain one, larger infinite set into a smaller but still infinite set, does not mean that the larger infinite set does not still exist.
For this ‘fractional universes’ constraint to make any sense, one would have to demonstrate /why/ the constraint would need to apply to a set of all universes, in a way that is actually meaningfully different than /the constraint not being there/.
And that is an astoundingly complex matter of physics, not Set Theory 101.
EDIT 2: My above example from EDIT 1 is not logically valid, so… I played myself on that one, and worse it seems to have confused the whole discussion, so, apologies for that.
Check out leftzero’s link for a more accurate analogy that I /should/ have used.
I still believe my original main point still stands though: The fact that there are an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2 in no way means anything whatsoever about possible multiverses.
Possible and Impossible universes are defined by the laws of physics.
To override my comment elsewhere in this thread:
A universe without gravity could conceptually exist, but stars would not form, so we would probably not have any of the atomic elements produced by novae and super novae. Also, no galaxies, no black holes, no planets, no life as we know it, as it seems life requires a planet.
A universe without the Strong Nuclear Force would just be ‘quark soup’.
A universe without the Weak Nuclear Force on the other hand has been demonstrated by at least one, perhaps now multiple papers to actually possibly be relatively similar to ours in some ways… very big picture kind of ways.
A universe without ElectroMagnetism … at bare minimum would have vastly different Chemistry than ours. Organic Chemistry seems largely impossible, so no life as we know it, other than possibly some primitive extremophiles.
But these are just thought experiments.
My main point was the whole ‘infinite fractions existing between 1 and 2 has no ramifications on multiverses that could exist’ thing, and I again apologize for an incorrect and misleading example.
The point is that people tend to claim the opposite, that an infinite amount of universes means everything and anything is happening in some universe somewhere. Which can’t be true, as a universe where someone creates some device that destroys all universes does not exist (as proven by our own existence).
Therefore it follows that there must be some constraints, though what those constraints actually are is obviously a very difficult problem.
The “infinite fractions between 1 and 2 which are not 3” is an example that shows that infinite =/= everything.
I agree with you up to the last sentence.
I would say it is an analogy that is clumsy at best, and definitely not proof of anything about possible or impossible universes, as the OP presented it.
It’s not a proof of possible/impossible universes, it’s a counterexample to the argument that infinite universes must necessarily mean that there’s a universe with anything in it. It disproves that there must be a universe with X in it because there are infinite universes. It does not disprove that there isn’t a universe with X in it.
It makes no claims that the multiverse must necessarily be constrained, but it does show that you can’t simply assume that the multiverse must be unconstrained. That needs to be proven first. And there are compelling arguments to assume that said constraints do exist (in some way).
This doesn’t make sense. OP just provided an example of “infinite universes” that even tho they are infinite, they do not contain all possibilities. Because we can’t see all universes at the same time, we cannot know if they have any constraints at all. For instance, all universes might only have me being born in some odd day for some weird reason for all we know.
OP assumes that the multiverse has constraints. The person you replied to is saying that OP is wrong because we don’t know whether the multiverse has constraints, so OP is wrong.
As you said, existence is constrained by laws of physics of this universe and by potentially different laws/constraints in other universes that we can’t possibly know. Because we lack the ability to observe the infinite expanse of universes as a whole, we can’t know what the constraints are (if any) so we can only understand them as infinite possibilities without constraints, but this doesn’t mean that there are not constraints that we’re just incapable of observing, and I feel like this was OPs point with this post. We don’t know what we don’t know.
You made me realize that we always think of infinity as an immensely large number, but it can be an immensely small number (0.0(infinite)1).
We imagine the vastness of space and forget that people are studying what makes up quarks.
So thanks for making me realize infinity stretches in both the inifinitely large and the infinitely small. Wasn’t expecting to get a ride on the total perspective vortex from showerthoughts today.
Very good, what you described is called an Infinitesimal, and it is a building block of Calculus.
The set of all integers is not larger than the set of all odd integers.
The set of all real numbers, on the other hand, is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum
Ah, you are correct, my example was flawed.
Thats what /I/ get for not having brushed up on Set Theory 101 in a decade.
Derp.
I was going to post more or less similar rant, but hey thanks for doing it. I second this @OP you hear this? This post just sounds like you don’t understand infinity that well.
But what makes the infinite versions of you bound to a range of 1-2 rather than infinity itself?
If “>2 and <1” in this scenario are dimensions where you don’t exist, wouldn’t the range of 1-2 cover every possibility of who you could be?
No, that’s the point. The numbers between one and two are infinite; there’s no “infinity itself”. You can have infinite possibilities without having “every” possibility. There are infinitely many things that could be excluded from infinite universes, and there’d still be infinite universes just the same.
For something to be a possible universe vs an impossible universe, we would be talking about possible laws of physics that do and do not allow for a universe to exist.
That would be the constraints to an infinite set of possible universes.
The fact that there exist an infinity of fractions between one and two is irrelevant and has no bearing on this at all.
There are absolutely not an infinite number of things that could be excluded from the set of infinite possible universes.
Gravity, for example.
Last I checked, it was posited that a universe could possibly exist without the Weak Nuclear Force, but I have never heard of a possible universe that could exist without the Strong Nuclear Force or Electromagnetism.
The fact that there exist an infinity of fractions between one and two is irrelevant and has no bearing on this at all.
It’s an analogy to help people grasp that infinities are weird. Just like there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2, there are also infinite numbers that aren’t between 1 and 2. Just because there’s infinite universes doesn’t mean one of them must have unicorns, in the same way that the infinite set between 1 and 2 doesn’t contain 3. A common misconception people have is that infinite universes must mean there’s one just like the Marvel universe, or that you win the lottery in one, but we can easily have infinity without including those things.
All of the universes could have our exact same laws of physics and that wouldn’t prevent there from there being infinitely many. They could all have the same guy named Gary. The point is, you could have infinite universes just tweaking one variable infinitely many ways, and there are infinite variables…
if there are an infinite amount of multiverses, logically, there must be many in which you do not exist.
Not necessarily. You could be the one constant throughout them all for whatever reason and it wouldn’t put any damper on there being an infinite number of universes. That’s the whole point of OPs example; infinity can still be bound by limits.
That’s the whole point of OPs example; infinity can still be bound by limits.
such as there being no constants? can that not be a limit?
We can’t really know what’s possible I suppose, it’s more that there’s sort of different “levels” of infinity where one level can contain another within itself, but both are still infinite just the same. When people imagine infinity they picture everything, but it doesn’t need to be.
Hilbert’s hotel is a good example that illustrates how infinities are weird.
Those are the lucky universes.
And at least one where this post wasn’t made.
quantum humor. cute.
Jerry there’s an infinite number of you and all of them are losers.
The mind-bending thing about it is thus: there are an infinite multitude of “you” throughout the multiverse expressing every “you” that could, or even could not, be. However, there are infinitely more realities with no “you” at all. The set of infinities containing an expression of “you” is necessarily smaller than the set of infinities that do not contain an expression of “you” simply owing to the very narrow nature of eventualities required to express “you” into existence. In point of fact, that set if infinitesimal labeled “you” is infinitesimal in comparison to the set labeled “not you”, and yet still uncountable in its infinity.
Don’t worry, in one of those realities, odds are one of the me’s developed a multiversal bomb that destroyed all the realities other than ours.
I’m not sure how sound that reasoning is, it’s difficult to use intuition to determine whether one infinite set is bigger than another. Infinity is weird.
Say for instance you have two infinite sets: a set of all positive integers (1, 2, 3…) and a set of all positive multiples of 5 (5, 10, 15…). Intuitively you might assume the first set is bigger, after all it has five times as many values, right? But that’s not actually the case, both sets are actually exactly the same size. If you take the first set and multiply every value by 5 you have the second set, no need to add or remove any values. Likewise, dividing every value in the second set gives you the first set again. There is no value in one set that can’t be directly mapped to a unique value in the other, therefore both sets must be the same size. Pick any random number and it’s 5 times as likely to be in the first set than the second, but there are not 5 times as many values in the first set.
With infinitely many universes one particular state being a few times more or less likely doesn’t necessarily matter, there can still be as many universes with you as without.
The ultimate conceit is that infinities are a wonderfully engaging concept, but truly comprehending them as a tangible thing is inherently futile. We want to make these comparisons. They do, in some ways, hold some kind of meaningful as a concept, because we like one thing to be bigger or better than the other. But, at the scale of infinity, these comparisons are arbitrary and largely meaningless in any practical way.
And if infinite possibilities exist then there must be a universe in which all other universe are a carbon copy of that one and not at the same time. It can be expanded well past the absurd.
In another universe 2 would be 3 so 3 would be between 1 and 2.
Not thinking infinite enough.
No. Mathematical facts hold independently of any universe.
You realize the numbers are arbitrary and every universe will have different terms, phrases and orders for these completely arbitrary “numbers” yeah?
What facts do you speak of?
Symbols for numbers can obviously be different. Numbers themselves can not.
Pardon? We already have multiple different ways to express numbers, they are completely arbitrary. Why would alternate universes not have different ways to express numbers, like we already do?
Which facts do you speak of?
If you look at a single item, why do we call it 1? Why not 2? Why not 3? Because it’s arbitrary and the numbers are an expression of what we see. So yes in alternate universes 3 can be between 1 and 2. Since the expression of numbers is meaningless.
It could, like we call the number two 10 in binary, or 1+1 or II or whatever. Numbers can have any symbol associated to it, but the abstract object they refer to is the same.
The thoughts not about objects though it’s about the arbitrary distinction we’ve made, so I really don’t see why that matters here?
I usually say “There are an infinite number of integers. That does not mean that one of them is a banana”.
There are different kinds of infinity.
How long you spent in that shower?
You’re assuming that physics would be the same in every other universe. Physics works the way it does in our universe largely because of constants, but we don’t know why many of these constants exist and we probably never will. The idea of a god creating out universe seems like an obvious explanation, but more likely it’s survivor bias. Specifically, the idea that since we happen to live in a universe where everything is just right and so we look at that as a miracle and probably planned. In reality, it’s more likely that there are actually an infinite number of universes with different physics where life is impossible, but that means that even if less than 1% of all of those infinite universes is able to support life, there are still so, so many universes in which it was. Many of them being nearly identical to our own, and many of them being so strange and alien that we probably couldn’t even wrap our heads around the strangeness even if we had an eternity to study them.
“They” don’t have any proof.
The person most qualified to speak on this is Sir Roger Penrose, and he believes quantum wave collapse is caused by gravity, and rather than happening faster than the speed of light it’s actually reversing time and happening in the past.
That “prunes” the multiverse leaving us with one prime timeline. So the multiverse would only exist for fractions of a second before collapsing back into one retroactively before it even existed.
And I can only assume the writers of Loki knows about him and that’s why it sounds like I’m just explaining the MCU.
Seriously, Penrose is basically the Einstein of this generation. He finished up a lot of Einstein’s work, and has spent the last couple decades looking into this and what consciousness actually is. If it sounds like science fiction, is because writers would take the five minutes to read what the world’s smartest physicist thinks.
If it sounds confusing, it’s because the only thing in the universe that requires linear time in one direction is consciousness. So we only experience time like that. Everything else really doesn’t give a shit about time, especially at the quantum level.
But yeah, a “bigger” infinite can exist than a “smaller” infinite. It’s too confusing for me to understand, but a bunch of really really smart people have been looking into it. It’s kind of the same thing. Humans are limited, and our way of expressing ideas even more so.
Eventually we might figure out a way to explain that doesn’t break the brains of 99.99999999% of humans.
But if you want to try and understand, there’s lots of writing on it and even a decent Netflix documentary
the only thing in the universe that requires linear time in one direction is consciousness. So we only experience time like that. Everything else really doesn’t give a shit about time
Is that really true? I feel like a lot of things thay are not consciousness still have causal relationships.
A simple example is combustion. It needs fuel and an ignition. It produces light and heat that transfer energy to its environment. This couldn’t work in reverse or independent of time.
This couldn’t work in reverse or independent of time.
No, we can’t make it happen in reverse in the perception of time we need to have consciousness.
It’s not that everything has to confirm to how we experience it. It’s that we can only observe things in the way we can experience it.
Now, while Penrose finished up Einsteins work on relativity, I get most people do t know who he is.
But even Einstein himself disagreed with you before Penrose finished it.
Einstein’s statement was not merely an attempt at consolation. Many physicists argue that Einstein’s position is implied by the two pillars of modern physics: Einstein’s masterpiece, the general theory of relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics. The laws that underlie these theories are time-symmetric — that is, the physics they describe is the same, regardless of whether the variable called “time” increases or decreases. Moreover, they say nothing at all about the point we call “now” — a special moment (or so it appears) for us, but seemingly undefined when we talk about the universe at large. The resulting timeless cosmos is sometimes called a “block universe” — a static block of space-time in which any flow of time, or passage through it, must presumably be a mental construct or other illusion.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-debate-over-the-physics-of-time-20160719/
Serious, if you’re saying time is constant and can only flow in one direction, you’re arguing with the literal foundation physics is built on.
Time just isn’t a necessity for anything except consciousness.
This is crazy complicated though, and I’m not even going to pretend to understand all of it. So it’s hard to explain. I’d suggest a lot of reading if you want to know more rather than me try to summarize.
But yes, if you do the actual physics of something being set on fire, the equation works just fine both ways
Instead of saying it can only work one way, it’s more accurate to say a consciousness can only experience it one way. Which might not even be technically true.
A self contained universe with fixed energy and infite time will eventually see a pile of ash turned into an apple. And it wouldn’t violate a damn thing with our system of physics.
Edit:
Specifically for causal stuff:
Show a person a causaul relationship out of order (acb rather than abc) and they’re report that they observed abc. The conscious mind can’t rationalize acb, so it overrides it
This may very well be happening constantly and we just don’t even know it.
All this stuff is incredibly interesting, it’s just even harder to wrap our minds around, because our minds may have evolved to handle all this stuff as a background process. Because consciousness needs to experience stuff in abc order to make any sense out of anything.
It’s a real mindfuck, literally. There’s a very good chance we’ll never be able to understand because we’re conscious
Beyond consciousness, the second law of thermodynamics also implies the presence and direction of time. In fact, it is sometimes called the Arrow of Time as it appears to direct physical processes to happen preferentially in the direction that increases entropy.
A self contained universe with fixed energy and infite time will eventually see a pile of ash turned into an apple. And it wouldn’t violate a damn thing with our system of physics.
This occuring spontaneously would indeed violate the 2nd law. This is a core disagreement between classical thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, which seems to re-derive classical thermo from probabilistic arguments over system states.
I feel it also warrants stating that Penrose’s theory is not widely accepted, has yet to be tested, and is based mostly on an argument to elegance - it “seems weird” for their to be uncountably infinite parallel timelines spawning at every instant. It is far too soon for it to be taken as fact.
This occuring spontaneously would indeed violate the 2nd law.
It’s not spontaneous…
It’s happening in cba order rather abc.
Conservation of energy mate, whether it’s energy or mass, it’s not going anywhere.
So in a contained universe, it doesn’t matter if it’s an apple releasing energy and becoming a pile of ash, or a pile of ash absorbing energy and becoming a perfectly normal apple.
The net energy is still conserved. Just going from energy to mass unlike mass to energy.
Like, think of it as a seed becoming a tree. Mass is being “created” from energy.
But the laws of thermodynamics as were used to them are predicated on a linear one direction passage of time, because humans are the ones who explained it, and that’s the only reality our conscious minds can comprehend
If what I’m saying doesn’t make sense, it’s because this is ridiculously complicated. Any flaws are because of me trying to explain it which is why I said if someone wants to understand more, they’re going to have to spend a lot of time reading some really heavy scientific literature.
I feel it also warrants stating that Penrose’s theory is not widely accepted, has yet to be tested, and is based mostly on an argument to elegance - it “seems weird” for their to be uncountably infinite parallel timelines spawning at every instant. It is far too soon for it to be taken as fact.
You’re talking more about Penroses further hypothesis that consciousness is because of quantum collapse inside of the brain. That is where challenges arise.
But Penrose is smart enough to say he doesn’t know everything, and he has spent decades talking about this stuff in the scientific community because he wants it challenged. That’s kind of how science works…
it’s not spontaneous
Spontaneity in thermodynamics refers to a process which occurs without external application of energy. In your description, a pile of ash becoming an apple is spontaneous.
So in a contained universe, it doesn’t matter if it’s an apple releasing energy and becoming a pile of ash, or a pile of ash absorbing energy and becoming a perfectly normal apple.
The net energy is still conserved. Just going from energy to mass unlike mass to energy.
There is no mass-energy conversion in an apple burning to become ash, just the release of chemical energy from newly-formed bonds.
Regardless, conservation of energy is only one part of how the universe operates. The second operating principle is (or at least from hundreds of years of scientific inquiry appears to be) the maximization of entropy. That is the ‘spreading out’ of available energy. This is the reason iron rusts, rather than remaining oxygen and iron - conservation of energy alone cannot explain natural phenomena.
Spontaneous reconstruction of an ashed apple violates the second law of thermodynamics, and the Second law is no less valid than the First.
Lastly, I was not writing specifically about Penrose’s views on consciousness. His entire theory that gravity is driving the collapse of a wave function, and that said collapse occurs retroactively, is untested and based on an appeal to elegance. This does not make it wrong, but it most certainly should not be taken as true.
Spontaneity in thermodynamics refers to a process which occurs without external application of energy. In your description, a pile of ash becoming an apple is spontaneous.
Because what is acting on it is the energy that turns back into matter…
Look, I’m not going to argue this. Feel free to start reading about it on your own, and good luck.
An oldie but goodie! https://youtu.be/SrU9YDoXE88?si=FAQVuiMLnzXZnQiK
