Philosophy Now Forum

Noax wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:But I wasn't talking about just my copy. My copy and the life it has to be exactly the same would require every single event from the beginning of that particular universe up to and including the end of my life to follow the exact same pattern. I don't think the number you quoted would be correct.

It wouldn't be a copy if the life was any different at all. The stars in the sky have to be the same. That calculation was the probability of a galaxy being in the same state as ours, and history is part of state. You still need other galaxies to be where they are, but perhaps not identical except for the singular events (supernovas, etc) about which we are aware.

Can't say I agree with the calculation since it is not made clear how many bits are needed to describe one particle, and thus the probablity of just that one particle being correct. The rest is easy if you get that first part right. No amount of finite precision will guarantee a specific future, but nobody claimed that this copy hubble sphere will remain identical with ours one minute from now.

Max calculates that the average distance to an identical Hubble volume would be 2^10^118 meters from us.

That sounds more right. I said 28, not 118, but mine was for a galaxy, not the entire volume.

But this is just the distance to an identical planet.

Hubble volume or planet? Which one?

or that planet to have the exact same history you would have to factor in every single event that takes place in our universe at any given time. The probability would then be a ridiculous number.

How could a planet be identical without an identical history? It does have memory you know.

I think you need to read what I wrote again because you are arguing with me about things which you and I both seem to be in agreement with.

therammo wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

therammo wrote:
I completely agree , IF we talk about anything that is finite.. however, even with the extreme low chance that every atom come in the same absolute repetition, however if infinity exists, then what makes it impossible to create same exact universe as ours, thus make our existence repetitive?

Why don't you get the simple logic that if there are an infinite number of universes, the chances of a single universe existing are 1/infinity=0? In an infinite number of universes, the chances of a single universe existing are literally zero. The chances of two universes existing are also 2/infinity=0 and so on for any finite number of universes. Even the chances of an infinite number of universes existing is infinity/infinity=undefined and not 1.

if your math is correct then you have proof that infinite multiverse can't and doesn't exist. The many world theories all suggest that we might be living in eternal inflation which give rise to infinite multiverses all containing different yet infinite number of different universes, which also explains why our universe is so fine tuned. Multiverse theory can explain and give answer to so many questions. The only con of it is that science can't prove it yet but have you seen the cosmic background radiation that was found to be an indication of another universe?

The problem with these theories is that they are pretty similar to the theory that God transcends time and space. There is no real way to prove them since we are bound by the laws of this universe and cannot transcend time and space. Also, I have no real issue with the multiverse theory. My problem is with the term infinity. I just cannot fathom how any particular universe can exist in an infinite number of universes if the probability is zero. Either the math is wrong or infinite universe theory is wrong. I prefer to assume that the math is right and the unproven theory seems to be wrong. You might choose to believe the math is wrong and the unproven theory is right.

sthitapragya wrote:How can the probability of another one universe like ours be infinity/ infinity? It would be 1/infinity=0. If the probability of a single universe exactly like ours is 0, how can there be an infinity of universes like ours.

First of all I think we're talking type-2 inflation bubbles as 'a universe'.
There are infinite possible universes P where any difference at all is not considered a duplicate. There are also infinite bubbles B in eternal inflation. These are the attempts, the rolls of the dice so to speak. P is the number of sides on the dice.

The probability of this universe being duplicated is B/P, or infinity/infinity. If P is greater than B, it is probably a lot greater, and the probability of a dup is pretty much zero. If B is greater than P, then there are dups, probably an infinity of them. You seem to assume that P is greater than B (and I find that more likely), and therammo assumes the latter, and that there are dups. There are very much duplciates of us, but they are more probably found in the more fertile type-1 multiverse (other hubble spheres) than in another inflation bubble.

The difference is that a give hubble sphere is a finite chunk of something, and has a finite probability of existence in some particular state (say the state of things at the moment of my death). That state includes memory of history, so the history is identical. So now P is finite, and B (the number of possible hubble spheres) is still infinite, so the existence of our duplicates is a mathematical certainty.

Is P finite in that scenario? I have not demonstrated that the state of a hubble sphere has a finite description. I think it can be argued otherwise. Don't consider my conclusions to be assertions.

therammo wrote:The many world theories all suggest that we might be living in eternal inflation which give rise to infinite multiverses all containing different yet infinite number of different universes, which also explains why our universe is so fine tuned.

Just a terminology note: You are describing inflation theory, not Many-Worlds interpretation. It is a different sort of multiverse. "Many-Worlds theory" is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that posits that wave functions do not collapse under observation. It has no direct connection with inflation theory, but it gives rise to a quantum multiverse as opposed to an inflation multiverse. I said there were 4-5 kinds of multiverses.

Multiverse theory can explain and give answer to so many questions. The only con of it is that science can't prove it yet but have you seen the cosmic background radiation that was found to be an indication of another universe?

Inflation theory does make predictions, so it is subject to falsification. It has fared well so far. The CMB is the 'fireball' of our own big bang. Yes, you can still see the original bang. Perhaps you refer to otherwise unexplained irregularities in the CMB, a 'bruise' so to speak that has been suggested to be caused by a different bubble.

Noax wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:How can the probability of another one universe like ours be infinity/ infinity? It would be 1/infinity=0. If the probability of a single universe exactly like ours is 0, how can there be an infinity of universes like ours.

First of all I think we're talking type-2 inflation bubbles as 'a universe'.
There are infinite possible universes P where any difference at all is not considered a duplicate. There are also infinite bubbles B in eternal inflation. There are the attempts, the rolls of the dice so to speak. P is the number of sides on the dice.

The probability of this universe being duplicated is B/P, or infinity/infinity. If P is greater than B, it is probably a lot greater, and the probability of a dup is pretty much zero. If B is greater than P, then there are dups, probably an infinity of them. You seem to assume that P is greater than B (and I find that more likely), and therammo assumes the latter, and that there are dups. There are very much duplciates of us, but they are more probably found in the more fertile type-1 multiverse (other hubble spheres) than in another inflation bubble.

The difference is that a give hubble sphere is a finite chunk of something, and has a finite probability of existence in some particular state (say the state of things at the moment of my death). That state includes memory of history, so the history is identical. So now P is finite, and B (the number of possible hubble spheres) is still infinite, so the existence of our duplicates is a mathematical certainty.

Is P finite in that scenario? I have not demonstrated that the state of a hubble sphere has a finite description. I think it can be argued otherwise. Don't consider my conclusions to be assertions.

Well, from the sound of it, your math is far better than mine, so for now, I will just take your word for it. . So duplicates of me, huh? Then God definitely does not exist.

sthitapragya wrote:Well, from the sound of it, your math is far better than mine, so for now, I will just take your word for it. .

I have decided to call it "maths" from now on, at least in the forums. See the thread in the philosophy of language section. It hurts to say it, but I was moved by a reasonable argument.

So duplicates of me, huh?

Duplicates in this bubble, not other ones. I agreed with your conclusion that the duplication of this entire bubble in another bubble is unlikely. In this bubble, only if there is finite probability of this hubble volume existing elsewhere, which begs that there can be a finite description of our state. I cannot assert that, but if things are discreet at some Planck level, then perhaps the state is finite. Tegmark did the computation, but did not qualify it (in the articles I read) with the precision assumed. How much data is needed to describe the state (wave function) of just one particle, to enough precision to declare identicalness in state and history? How about the state of all the non-particle things like dark matter and such? The state of matter probably includes the dark influences in its history, so not sure if that need be included.

Then God definitely does not exist.

Another thing we agree on, and yes, that reason is a big one. If you really try to get a grip on our significance in the larger picture, it becomes pretty obvious that no God can really give a crap about each instance of a thinking moment. It really gets boggling when you add all the insane duplicates we have under MWI of quantum mechanics. Don't think they had that sort of problem in mind when writing the religious texts.

Noax wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Well, from the sound of it, your math is far better than mine, so for now, I will just take your word for it. .

I have decided to call it "maths" from now on, at least in the forums. See the thread in the philosophy of language section. It hurts to say it, but I was moved by a reasonable argument.

In India, it has always been called maths. But thanks to watching too many American serials and movies, I assumed I had got it wrong, so I started using math. This is good news for me because though I used to type "math", I never really felt comfortable.

I don't think multiverses are necessary to make the God concept redundant. This universe itself is sufficient for me.