If infinite parallel universes exist ...

[Thozau]

... then it is obvious that there is an infinite number
of universes in which a certain event x occurs.

At the same time there is an infinite number of universes
in which the given event x does not occur.

So if we randomly draw one of this infinite number of
universes out of our magic hat and the drawn universe
is ours then the probability that the given event x is part of it
is the same as the one that the given event x is NOT part of it:
50% (either it happens or it doesn´t).

So (given that infinite parallel universes exist) the probability
of every single thinkable event happening in our universe
is exactly 50% - like a certain leaf falling from a tree or
a slice of toasted bread being elected the first world leader.


Awh well ... just a thought.

[John K]

Hugh Everett was one hell of a thinker. Too bad he drank himself to death.

[Blaggard]

I think it's pure fantasy which can never be proven myself, but if it is true then fundamentally the universe is deterministic, as the wave function is real although non local.

In an infinite universe situation anything that can happen will, it does depend on the universes laws though, so in our universe for example pink giraffes cannot teleport to the moon using moonbeams and wishes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8-8WJxA-cI

Reminds me of this.

[MGL]

...So (given that infinite parallel universes exist) the probability of every single thinkable event happening in our universe is exactly 50% - like a certain leaf falling from a tree ....

An interesting suggestion, but you may want to consider:


1) There are an infinity of integers and there may be an infinite number of prime numbers, but the probability that an integer is a prime is not going to be the same as the probability that an integer is not a prime.

2) The relative number of other relevant possibilities. In the case of the falling leaf, there seems to be only two options - falling and not falling. But if the probability is about the colour of the leaf, we may want to consider each colour as an equal possibility. So if we consider the probability of a leaf being green, it might be wrong to think it equal to the probability of not being green as not being green means it could be red or blue etc. and presumably each should have the same probability as being green. And remember our range of probabilities has to add up to 1.

3) The probability of an event occurring in a universe is also relative to the known facts of that universe. In the absence of any known facts relating to the occurrence of an event with only one alternative possibility then I would probably estimate the probability will indeed be 50%. But if we know the age of a leaf in a universe and know from experience that older leaves fall more frequently than younger ones, then we can estimate a more accurate probability.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, but infinity does not behave in the ways you expect! Consider the famous "Hilbert's Hotel" thought experiment, for example. Playing around with infinity quickly yields absurd conclusions.

You only increase chances with reference to infinity if you limit chances in another. If there are infinite variables in the universe, no number of recursive chances increases probability: both are swallowed up in infinity itself.

If you doubt this, take a look at my entry on "Nonsense On Stilts" (the article thread), and you'll get the full explanation.

[Blaggard]

Indeed Immanuel or Laplaces Demon, which rules out the chances of God being able to be omniscient because of the infinite memory rquirements exceeding the amount of information that could be known, by ironically saying the opposite.



It must be admitted that the openness of the future would be hard to defend in the rigidly deterministic universe that Laplace regarded as the inexorable consequence of taking Newtonian ideas seriously. We have seen that in that world, full knowledge of the present, together with unlimited calculating power, implies total knowledge of a rigorously entailed past and future. Nothing really novel ever happened; history was a reiterated tautology. However, the iron grip of Laplace's calculating demon has been relaxed by the twentieth century discovery of widespread intrinsic unpredictabilities present in nature, both at the microscopic level of quantum events and also at the macroscopic level of the behavior of exquisitely sensitive chaotic systems. We have noted already that the question of whether these epistemological deficiencies are to be interpreted as signs of an ontological openness is a metaphysical issue, not to be settled by the natural sciences alone. In the case of chaotic systems, we have seen that it is possible to develop an interpretation that leads to the existence of extra causal principles with the form of the 'active information', and that these might well be capable of accommodating the action of both human and divine agency. Such a program would then achieve Pannenberg's desired defense of the openness of history, as theology wishes to understand it, not by appeal to field theory but to the ideas of the top-down effects of active information. There is much that is necessarily speculative here, but I believe that these ideas afford a better model than field for the presence and activity of the Spirit.[10]
—John Polkinghorne, Faith, Science and Understanding

There's only one infinity you can use or manipulate in any reliable way, the universe which is infinite but finite in size. It is the set of existence to which as far as we know or indeed can most likely ever know, everything belongs, there are no null sets. It is also expanding probably as fast if not faster than the speed of light so it is also unbounded too. It is what the ancient Greeks would of called a countable infinity, as opposed to an uncountable one.

[Immanuel Can]

There's only one infinity you can use or manipulate in any reliable way, the universe which is infinite but finite in size.

In a way, this comes close to my point. Infinity is not calculable, and thus probability calculations cannot be performed upon it. Only if a problem is bounded and finite in a particular dimension does infinity enter a probability calculus in an informative way. An infinite time, when coupled with limited options, would infinitely increase probability of any particular one of them happening. But infinite time coupled with infinite options creates no increase in probability of any option, and in fact, creates infinite improbability of any option.

The universe, however, is said to be infinite in both of the dimensions required for a probability calculation of the recursion of an "unlikely" event: i.e., in size and in number of (possible) events. Thus the two infinities do not provide any of the boundaries essential for a probability calculation, so we cannot say anything "probably" will come of them.

The Laplace stuff makes no sense. The problem as posited is self-contradictory, not contradictory to the existence of a Supreme Being.

As C.S. Lewis observed, "Nonsense is still nonsense; even when we are trying to use it to speak of God."

[HexHammer]

... then it is obvious that there is an infinite number
of universes in which a certain event x occurs.

No there wouldn't suddenly be an infinitive number of universes, it might explain super symmetry in quantum.

Personally I don't believe in paralel uniserves.

[Blaggard]

There's only one infinity you can use or manipulate in any reliable way, the universe which is infinite but finite in size.

In a way, this comes close to my point. Infinity is not calculable, and thus probability calculations cannot be performed upon it. Only if a problem is bounded and finite in a particular dimension does infinity enter a probability calculus in an informative way. An infinite time, when coupled with limited options, would infinitely increase probability of any particular one of them happening. But infinite time coupled with infinite options creates no increase in probability of any option, and in fact, creates infinite improbability of any option.

The universe, however, is said to be infinite in both of the dimensions required for a probability calculation of the recursion of an "unlikely" event: i.e., in size and in number of (possible) events. Thus the two infinities do not provide any of the boundaries essential for a probability calculation, so we cannot say anything "probably" will come of them.

The Laplace stuff makes no sense. The problem as posited is self-contradictory, not contradictory to the existence of a Supreme Being.

As C.S. Lewis observed, "Nonsense is still nonsense; even when we are trying to use it to speak of God."

Actually you'd need to get why in a non causal universe no one being has enough information or could no matter how omniscient to predict anything about anything and that's air tight, there simply is not enough information in the universe in a non causal system that could relate to the universe. I don't think C.S.Lewis has any bearing on quantum mechanics, I don't think that it resolves the existence of God or not either, but it does say that no divinity could possibly comprehend an existence that was stochastic, it is impossible. Which means if you beleive in God you have to believe in determinism, causality and compatiblism, which makes no sense whatsoever. Which is fine religion has been and will continue to have faith in things that make no sense whatsoever. Not like I am going to care, beleive what you want, just don't expect rational people to buy compatibilism = free will or whatever else apologists want to make God out to be doing with logic that isn't logic. Sure there may be some answer out there but I am damn sure human beings are far too stupid to explain anything infinite including God.

[EagerForTruth]

Hmm, where to approach this idea. First, I'm throwing in with there is infinite parallel universes. As to why - well though scientists try I've heard some claim yes others claim no, although it seems to be gaining popularity. But doesn't infinity never end? So doesn't that make calculating it somewhat tricky?

Now I have trouble separating any inquiry from my starting perception that reality, or existence is comprised of just one ultimate thing. Our quest in philosophy to find what is real, i suppose is actually finding a way to understand the truth (or truths) depends on your preference of viewpoint, that all of reality's infinite manifestations are contained in the ultimate one. So reality is infinite, and it very well maybe an infinite number of "universes" too - then again, the one "universe" is just the name we give to the most complete (and vast) set of understanding of the reality we live in that we can identify physically with acceptable confidence.

Much of the rest of the threat is rather technical in terminology, but i have ran into this "non local" term in many threads. As a fake philosopher not bound by academic definitions, i will say everytime i hear, i just consider it a reference to the true universality of that one ultimate thing that makes reality, which in this case when i say universality, i mean is all there really is and exists in everything manifesting infinately in infinite ways.

[Ginkgo]

Hmm, where to approach this idea. First, I'm throwing in with there is infinite parallel universes. As to why - well though scientists try I've heard some claim yes others claim no, although it seems to be gaining popularity. But doesn't infinity never end? So doesn't that make calculating it somewhat tricky?

Infinities might not be that tricky. Here is an example I found.

www.mathsisfun.com/calculus/limits-infinity.html

Now I have trouble separating any inquiry from my starting perception that reality, or existence is comprised of just one ultimate thing. Our quest in philosophy to find what is real, i suppose is actually finding a way to understand the truth (or truths) depends on your preference of viewpoint, that all of reality's infinite manifestations are contained in the ultimate one. So reality is infinite, and it very well maybe an infinite number of "universes" too - then again, the one "universe" is just the name we give to the most complete (and vast) set of understanding of the reality we live in that we can identify physically with acceptable confidence.

Much of the rest of the threat is rather technical in terminology, but i have ran into this "non local" term in many threads. As a fake philosopher not bound by academic definitions, i will say everytime i hear, i just consider it a reference to the true universality of that one ultimate thing that makes reality, which in this case when i say universality, i mean is all there really is and exists in everything manifesting infinately in infinite ways.

Yes, I have seen "non-locality" a fair bit as well. I know I get hung up on this type of thing, but I will probably keep saying it.

I know non-local is interpreted in many places in this forum in terms of "omnipresent" non-local event. This is basically a religious interpretation of the term. I have nothing against this, but it is not applicable to quantum mechanics. Non-local can have a number of meanings depending on the area of study, but we cannot at this stage say that non-locality in terms of quantum mechanics is reference to a supreme being or some type of all pervasive consciousness.

I would argue that there is a difference between fringe scienceand pseudo-science. But that's just me.

[uwot]

I would argue that there is a difference between fringe scienceand pseudo-science. But that's just me.

Not just you, Gingko. Different disciplines sometimes use the same term to describe things that they study, sometimes to the confusion of non-experts. Realism springs to mind; a metaphysical realist believes, for instance, that Plato's 'forms' really exist. To my mind this is the antithesis of realism as it is more generally understood.
If ever I were to use the term non-local in a way not pertaining to physics, it would most likely refer to a pub that I didn't usually go in. Non-locality, as I understand physicists to understand it, is simply an apparently causal relationship for which there is, as yet, no compelling explanation. Entanglement is good example. Physicists have demonstrated that it is possible to change the spin of an electron by changing the spin of another electron that used to be in close proximity; they have shown that this can happen faster than it would take light to pass from one electron to the other, so there is no known means by which this change could be effected. If you think of a line of dominoes, a localised understanding would involve knocking one down and seeing the others tumbling in sequence. In entanglement, what happens in effect, is that you knock the first domino down and the one at the other end of the chain instantly falls over; there is no observed 'local' effect; ie one domino knocking into the next one.

[EagerForTruth]

Ginko, to me non-local in physics and non-local in metaphysics are certainly related, but of course in this forum they would be used somewhat differently. In physics, it refers to an interaction between two things at a distance...the strangest of which I find to be gravity, which I think people really take for granted. If you think about it, it really is a completely unexplainable phenomenon. According to our knowledge of it now, through no detectable particle or measurable energy, all matter gravitates toward other matter. Perhaps even more amazingly, it has no theoretical limit of range. Granted the force is so weak at distance as to have no discernable effect, but it still exerts.

As for the usage of it in metaphysics, I find that appropriate, because after all, though our knowledge is grounded in physics aren't we trying to go beyond just the physical in this inquiry? Logic, science, reason, these are the the tools and methods we have to explore that which is beyond. To stay within science and not go beyond it I think is very limiting. I get the impression that many feel that science will eventually explain everything. My personal guess is that it never will. Even with unlimited time to do it, I don't think we will ever stop finding more to discover.

[Ginkgo]

As for the usage of it in metaphysics, I find that appropriate, because after all, though our knowledge is grounded in physics aren't we trying to go beyond just the physical in this inquiry? Logic, science, reason, these are the the tools and methods we have to explore that which is beyond.

I isolated this little bit because it is precisely the problem I see. I agree that we need to go beyond science but there is a real problem when people say this. They usually want to say their rationalist metaphysics has its grounding in science, therefore it is demonstrable. Not so.

A typical example in this particular context is idea of non-locality demonstrating the presence of a supreme consciousness or supreme being. Quantum mechanics doesn't demonstrate this. These type of ideas fan the flames of pseudo-science.

I am not saying that in the future quantum theory won't demonstrate the existence of a supreme being, but at this stage it is not provable in any scientific way. At the moment we might be able to demonstrate supreme consciousness, or supreme being in other non-scientific ways, but that's a different proposition.

[EagerForTruth]

Strange....I don't particularly believe in a supreme being, nor am I a rationalist. Maybe some have used either of those things to that end and now you assume I am too?

And actually to go back to what Ginko said too, if you're still following the thread, I understand limits in math, and how it helps with calculations. Notice in the bit you showed me, it shows how to calculate a mathematical idea involving infinity by using limits, but also rather concludes that it's better not to use it. And even in the ones where it is used, it still just remains a concept of something continuing forever.