/sci/ - Science & Math

>an infinite universe would contain everything in every tiniest variation

Why?

an infinite universe doesn't imply infinite variation/stuff in it. It just means it has no boundry

Yeah, over a very long time.

Googolplex after googolplex of millennia, of an empty universe waiting for a quantum fluctuation..

OP should make an addendum:

"If it is infinite, then it is possible that there is infinite variations of the universe."

And then continue on with his stoner philosophy.

>It is possible the universe is infinite.
Probably not

>So that means, everything is possible.
Nope. An infinite universe cannot contain an infinite amount of matter.

Universe is finite but unbounded.

I read something about it that blew my mind. They said because it was infinite, everything that was physically possible would somewhere exist. That's small time. They also said, there had to be an identical you somewhere doing exactly what you are now. Not one, but an infinite amount. There was also someone identical to you, doing the same thing as you down to the very molecule. Also, everything about their world, including everything ~13 billion light years in every direction, was exactly the same ---down to the atom. And this identical visible universe was repeated, infinitely across the infinite universe.

The most impressive part was they calculated how far you would have to travel before you would statistically reach an identical visible universe to our own. It was pretty far, but still, there's an infinite amount of them. Pretty impressive.

>>2942209
No. If there were infinite 'universes' existing in the same 'universe' then the infinite matter from them would have infinite gravity and everything would be torn apart to probably a sub atomic level by infinite tidal forces.

>>2942209
I think I read that.

It was kind of silly. I don't think there's any evidence that the universe is built like that.

>>2942218
I didn't explain it well. If ours is an infinite universe, within it are many "observable universes" from the vantage point of the observer. If you could travel far enough through the infinite universe you would eventually arrive at a point that was identical to your home "observable universe".

>>2942221
I don't know. I think most theorist think our universe is infinite, and by probability the above has to be true.

We could never know of course, as we can never discover any information outside of our "observable universe".

An infinite universe does not mean everything is possible. There could be an infinite but totally monotonous universe.

By analogy, you could have an infinite sequence of numbers 0-9, but those numbers never contain the sequence "123".

>>2942221
If the universe were infinite, it would have to be that way. But there's no evidence that the universe is infinite.

>>2942240
Actually, the consensus is that the universe is finite. Most evidence points to that.

>>2942204
>>2942307

I regard to what property of the universe are you guys using the word finite?

the phrase "anything can happen" creates paradoxes.

if anything can happen, then both nothing can ever happen while everything also happens.

but that contradicts itself

>>2942307
There is no consensus, and if there were, it would be a meaningless consensus, because there is not the evidence to distinguish yet between the universe being finite or infinite. I believe it is finite on philosophical grounds.

>>2942328
Infinite extension. Which would imply infinite mass and energy, as the mass and energy is, on the large scale, evenly distributed through the universe's extension.

>>2942185
Every combination of a limited amount of elements and forces are possible.

You should read "The hidden reality - Brian Greene", it would be relevant to your interest.

>>2942348
But unbounded means infinite extension, doesn't it? Or do i suck even more at real analysis than i thought?

So that anon had to mean something else then.

Besides, isn't the universe unbounded by definition of universe? Only way you can define a boundary is if you have something outside the universe, which you can't because... you know... universe!

how can infinite things like pi exist within a finite universe?

>>2942414
Pi does not exist in nature. It is an abstraction

At a quantum level, anything probably is possible. But as the Hawking/Hertog Top Down theory explains, patterns formed, alternatives collapsed causing reality to be the way it is.

>>2942414

Is pi infinite?
Or is it just that it would require an infinite number of digits to represent it in our number system?

>>2942449
Good point. You could have a number system where pi was expressed as 1.

>>2942451
People keep saying that, but when i ask how it would work all i get is *crickets chirping*.
I really don't see how a base not-integer numbersystem would work.

>>2942425
Pi is an abstraction. The abstraction is trying to quantize nature with human math. It's not a failure of nature but of science. Scientist try to avoid using Pi.

>>2942468
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_representation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio_base

Does dese halp?

>>2942299
Actually YES, an infinite universe means that ALL possible things happen, an infinite number of times. LRN2 statistics.

>>2942485
"all possible things" is in no way the same as "all things are possible". LRN2 logic.

>>2942501
Except you said.
>By analogy, you could have an infinite sequence of numbers 0-9, but those numbers never contain the sequence "123".
Which is false.

The universe is only infinite in. the sense that you can not go out of it.

>>2942480
There's actually a wiki article about it? Commencing reading.
I don't know if dey halp, they look rather complicated for me, but i will try to understand some bits at least. Thanks a bunch.

just imagine, in an infinte universe there is a 4chan where it doesnt contain a single patronizing fucktard, unlike this thread.

>>2942505
No. It is true.
Take for example the infinite sequence 02468135790246813579....

>>2942374
No, infinite extension means infinite volume. It doesn't mean a finite unbounded volume. The universe is definitely unbounbed. There are no edges. If it's finite, it's homomorphic to the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional sphere.

>>2942505
That was not me who said that, but what do you mean is false? The analogy or the statement about sequences.
He expressed it rather clumsily, but as i understood it, here's an example:
341529786341529786341529786341529786...
infinite sequence of numbers 0-9, never contains the subsequence 123.

>>2942414
Pi isn't infinite. In fact, it is less than 4.

>>2942468
I doesn't work very well at all. There's a wiki page on it if you want more info though.

>>2942472
Math isn't human. It is more fundamental than nature. Nature is what it is because of math.

>>2942551
Negative. Gauss and Bolyai actually showed that math is an invention of the human mind.
Look up the contradiction to Euclid's geometry.

>>2942546

Wat?
In any infinite sequence of the digits 0 to 9, wouldn't you be able to pick out any and every arbitrary subsequence of said digits you wanted?

I don get.

>>2942587
That's bullshit. They showed no such thing. You actually think nature follows a human invention even though nature was here first.

>>2942587
But look at the beauty of Mendlebrot's sets.

>>2942587
>contradiction to Euclid's geometry
Your search - "contradiction to Euclid's geometry" - did not match any documents.

>>2942592
Yes. They did. Are your beliefs so irrefutable to the point where you would ignore all evidence to the contrary?
Then you are neither a mathematician nor a scientist. You are a religious zealot.

>>2942449
pi is just an example of a transcendental number that you are going to encounter regardless of the number system. You will always have numbers like that.

Also we would still have the relationship that C=2pi(r) except it would probably look more like aC=r where a=1/(2pi)

>>2942551

Isn't math, just like most other things human, a way of representing reality, emphasis on the 'representing'.

The universe is what it is, and all the things we do are just methods of understanding it. I think.

>>2942604

Would you care to link us your evidence?

>implying the universe isn't finite and unbounded
>implying you know fuckall about basic secondary school physics, much less universal topography

>>2942624
No, we discover math through using the tools of logic, and as a secondary discovery we find that nature operates according to laws that in turn follow the mathematical principles we discovered.

Many parts of math are not usually reflected in nature, but they are what they are. We can't change them. Like the prime numbers. Like pi. They are the relationships between the most fundamental aspects of logic and reality.

>>2942591
No you're assuming that each digit in the infinite sequence has a uniform probability of being any of the 10 digits, regardless of where it is in the sequence. That's not part of the assumption. The same applies to an infinite universe. Particles don't arrange themselves without patterns, but with patterns.

>>2942604
No they didn't. You're making baseless claims. You're the zealot

>>2942624

That's how it started, and math is still used for that, but math has grown so incredibly that you can use it to represent almost anything, be it real or not. And sometimes things get so abstract that you wouldn't say it represents anything but itself.

>>2942727
That's the point. Nature follows math, but only a subset of math. There's an infinity of math yet to be discovered, but math is primal. Even the math we're still discovering, such as the new mathematics of chaos, opens our eyes to how nature works precisely because nature follows math.

>>2942713
>implying the tools of logic weren't originally based on our perceptions of the world we inhabit

so there can be a universe inside a universe? since there are infinite possibilities..

>>2942732
You say discover math and i say invent math.
Former means math is a fundamental aspect of the universe, latter means it's a human construct. Fundamentally different assertions, neither of which matters for any practical purpose, and you can't really prove either of them.

>>2942736

The whole infinite possibilities is bullshit to anyone that knows anything of even remotely advanced mathematics.

example being that was given before in a convoluted form:
the sequence:
1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,...,1&
#44;2,3,....

will never contain the number 9. ever no matter how "infinite"

>>2942733
No, they are not. A=A is not based on perceptions of the external world, it is based on something more fundamental. Same with the rest of logic, like if A=B and B=C, then A=C.

Multiply 5 fingers by 5 fingers. Result? You now have 25 fingers. Natural or not?

>>2942753
>You say discover math and i say invent math.
Anyone who says "invent math" has never spent more than 5 minutes with number theory, or tried to solve a serious mathematical problem.

>>2942758
Don't even need math.
It's rather easy to prove everything isn't already infinite. If it was you'd either have a black hole so large it kills us, or a race so powerful and evil they destroy us.
If everything is possible, so is a gravitational pull so great that nearly everything gets sucked in.

THE ONLY LOGIC THAT MAKES SENSE IS ONE THAT CONTRADICTS ITSELF.

THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING.

YOU CANNOT PROVE ME WRONG.

>>2942792
Even if you take into account the gravity or power of said race isn't infinite.
If everything is infinite, then there must be a race that exists specifically to destroy us.
You could claim a counter-argument by saying there exists a race that specifically exists to save us, but it makes the idea of everything already being infinite awfully ridiculous.

>>2942765
if i could produce a physical counterexample that showed that A!=A for some A then you wouldn't hold the equality as such a fundamental rule anymore. A=A is in fact based on perception of the external world in the sense that no one (except maybe some of those we call madmen) has perceived a counterexample. Also in the sense that we have perceived objects or aspects of object that can be represented by the symbol A.

holy fuck what a fucking shit thread

>>2942722

OH! derp.
I see wat u did thar now.

>341529786341529786341529786341529786...
Didn't even look closely at the numbers.
Should of wrote it like this or something /b/ro:
>341529786... repeating
Just glanced at it, looked like ya just beat the numpad.

So, yeah obviously if it was some repeating sequence you wouldn't be able to pick off any old subsequence from it. But I'm still not sure about the second part of your answer.
>The same applies to an infinite universe. Particles don't arrange themselves without patterns, but with patterns.
That seems a bit of a jump to me.
Like say, what about irrational numbers, say pi?
Could you find any and every subsequence of digits from it?

I have a point to make that, to my knowledge, no one has mentioned yet.

Here is the point: an infinite universe does not imply that there exist ALL possible worlds.

To illustrate by example, some people claim that if the universe is infinite there must exist a planet somewhere that is exactly like ours, only with unicorns. This is a logical error. There may exist an infinite number of planets, with unicorns not being on any of them. That is because subsets of infinite sets are also infinite. Rudy Rucker addresses this in his book Infinity and the Mind.

>>2942865
If unicorns are possible, then they would exist. If they are impossible, then they wouldn't.

>>2942815
If you could show a physical counterexample that A!=A all knowledge is meaningless

>>2942815
It's not based on the external world AT ALL. It's based on our perception of the more fundamental reality than anything external.

>>2942854
I'm the anon who wrote that number sequence. It was rather intentional to make it look random. I thought it would make a more striking example for people who, like myself, can be rather dense sometimes. Whether it was a good idea or not i shall leave unsaid.

>>2942854
if the numbers follow a normal distribution, sure. You don't have to have a repeating infinite sequence either. For example, I could define x by randomly selecting 7, 8, or 9 for each digit ad infinitum

>>2942865
>I have a point to make that, to my knowledge, no one has mentioned yet.
>Whole thread is full of people trying to make that point.

>>2942885
now that's just wrong.

>>2942881
How can you even tell the difference?

>>2942299
A+

As far as I can tell there are infinite possible permutations of cause and effect in this physical universe, but even if it were to stretch out forever it would still be reasonable that any particular event might not occur, or occur only once, or occur in innumerable instances. Even the idea of multiple instances of the "same event" assumes some degree of variation, be it macro-contextual or sub-atomic.
I think that the same would hold for a reality with infinite universes, how can you calculate the probability of anything when the boundaries of your set are undefined?

>>2942865
If all possibilities are not met, then the universe cannot be called 'infinite', it's as simple as that.

>>2942931
Here's the most plausible explanation on the size/expansion of existence itself:
It is never truly infinite, but it is always expanding, thus having infinite potential. It's not that it's already infinite, but that it's possibilities are infinite, as the other way around doesn't make sense, and having both at once also doesn't make sense. But since it has infinite potential, it is still impossible for any being to ever climb up fast enough to see it all, and even if you measured it, you'd be incorrect about the size the moment that you measure it.

>>2942931
You wrote nothing to back this up.
By the way, what you are saying is that in an infinite universe, the laws of the universe can be broken. Have fun searching for molecules that can't exist and are extremely unstable.

>>2942976


score?

>>2942976
If existence is infinite, then the possibilities of laws are infinite too, so yes they can be 'broken' in that sense. Are you retarded? Do you not understand what infinite means?

>>2942976
>debating something that isn't even theoretical but a question of logic
>asking for evidence
wat.

>>2942996
if the possibilities of laws are infinite, our interpretation and understanding of the universe is wrong too, our math is flawed and the concept infinite might not even exist in the infinity of the infinite universe

>>2943014
One of the many reasons why the idea of the universe -already- being infinite, does not make sense.

The possibilities are endless but not the actualities. Anything is possible. Determinism is a lie. The point is frozen. The beast is dead. What indeed is the difference?

>>2943026
determinism and anything being possible can exist if you realize that, say every universe/existence is based on a completely random number or equation, as such, anything would still be possible to exist, but still hold true to physical laws per universe.

I hope I explained that well-enough.

why can't the universe be just an infinite wasteland of ash and stars and planets? why must I believe that pokemon live somewhere?

Let's take the mandelbrot set as an analogy of the universe. It is infinite. It contains an infinite number of shapes. But it does not contain all shapes. It doesn't not contain all shapes that are possible to construct. But it does contain all shapes that it is possible for the mandelbrot set to construct. Does it contain two identical shapes? I would guess no. It is infinite, but it is infinitely varied.

So by analogy, I do not think that an infinite universe requires another identical instance of this world, although it would require many similar versions.

>>2942996
....no.... There is no reason to think that the physical laws of the universe vary by location. Our physics requires that they do not.

>>2943052
You can't have both infinite -and- infinitely varied at once, for they contradict each other's existence. If it is infinite, it means no limits, it is so huge everything that ever will be always is. The only solution is finite, infinite possible expansion/potential, and infinite variety.

>>2943058
Infinite is infinite, no limits, not held by ANY boundaries, including laws. Furthermore, our laws we've only see in this universe, there is no reason at all to think in the least they'd hold true in other universes. And even if you claim our laws depend on such, then the laws are not correct.

If the universe is infinite, we will never find out.

Is this correct?

If yes, then why do we fucking bother

>>2943072
That's just wrong in every way. Infinite just means there is no large scale curve to spacetime and no limit to the extent of space and matter.

>>2943064
That's not true. The mandelbrot set is both infinite and infinitely varied. And it certainly has limits and constraints and rules.

>>2942920
Anything can happen because even the smallest changes can have tremendous consequences, regardless of whether or not matter becomes incomprehensibly sparse and cold at great distances over long periods of time. We have no way to measure any limit of tinyness in the universe, so the properties of physical cause and effect so complex as to appear chaotic. The size or boundary of the universe is fundamentally irrelevant to this theory because even if the universe consisted of just one observer and one particle there would be no real limit to the potential variety of their interactions.

"Infinity" is not a thing or a quantity; you can only define the concept in terms of itself, i.e. "An infinitely vast and complex universe contains an infinity of possible variations upon infinite imaginable axioms."

asplundh

>>2943089
Then you should have clarified, in which case my definition of finite with infinite potential matches your definition of infinite, though I should not your definition is off. Infinite means it's already endless.

I recently read a gret article in scientific american called "the inflation debate" in which they debate the multiple variations on the bing bang theory (inflationary, eternally inflationary, non-inflationary, big bounce), and their implications. the eternally inflating model predicts exactly this, that there is a eternally inflating area of matter (and if you've read about the bing bang, what i mean by inflation is very specific: i.e. inflating very very fast). inside this eternally inflating area, any quantum particle has a chance, albeit very low, of "exploding" into it's own big bang, a singular pocket of a universe. since this is a possibility in an infinite set, then it must happen an infinite number of times. therefore anything that can physically exist does, even if it is "somewhere else" for lack of a better phrase, in some other bing bang. the only thing that the theorists who wrote the article (Alan Guth and Paul Steinhard) could not reconcile is why a universe occuring later has not eaten up ours by now.

>>2943174
>>2942920
>>2942299
hop on this

>>2943491
I am not a science but i always thought that, even tho everybody says im wrong.

wormholes are big bangs, but its like a drain, the bang is the tap and the hole is the drain and each drain is a different reality.

Another though of mine was, if container is half full of matter, and half full of anti-matter. nothing could move. they would stop eachother because no space to move in. so there must be a third space.

the end.

if i throw a dice an infinite number of times i will never roll a 7

OP's everything is possible argument is thus nonsense

>>2943547

At one point the dice may break in half and show both the 6 and the 1.

>>2943547
Says the man who just roll'd a 7.

>>2943547
everything that is possible. I think that is pretty clear.

isn't it possible that it is not

>>2943823

The real clencher here is how the fuck is this thread still here? I mean really...

mfw i hit F5 and no 404

The universe is not infinite. Infinity is only a useful mathematical concept in order to piece together curves. =)

so what youre saying is, if everything is possible, then nothing is possible.

>>2946470

D:

Everything is possible, then its also possible that there's something impossible.

>>2942854

>Should of wrote it like this or something /b/ro:
>Should of wrote it like
>Should of wrote

wat

>>2946003
I'm back, and this thread is still fucking here. /sci/ really is the vestigial organ of 4chan..

pic super related