[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 46 KB, 655x527, IMG_1106.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9812771 No.9812771 [Reply] [Original]

Does the infinite universes theory invalidate cause and effect and thus meaning more generally? If every possibility does exist, it seems to follow that some universes may exist without any sort of order to them - completely random phenomena happening for no real reason, without true causality in the way we would expect of a law-governed universe. If such a world is impossible, then this introduces a constraint on how many possible universes there could be, and so they would no longer be infinite because they would need to follow laws.

So it seems like the concepts are incompatible. It's uncomfortable (for me, at least) to conceive of the universe as being merely mechanical material, because this would seem to validate Nietzsche's amorality - i.e. There is no realm of ideals, so all language aspiring towards truth is merely the expression of will, and has little relation to reality (if any). In the same way, conceiving of a universe where cause and effect don't matter is also uncomfortable because it would seem to invalidate cohesive narratives - our contingencies are no longer necessary Ys following Xs, because the law of cause and effect is itself shown to be contingent and therefore unnecessary.

What do you think, frens?

>> No.9813035

>Does the infinite universes theory invalidate cause and effect and thus meaning more generally?
It depends on whether the set of universes is countably infinite or uncountably infinite

>> No.9813062

>>9812771
Well, I mean, you can define infinite numbers of things that still follow rules

An example would be the set of all odd numbers, you've definitely restricted yourself by saying they have to be odd, but it's still an infinite set.

>> No.9813089
File: 38 KB, 400x400, IMG_0836.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9813089

>>9813035
I remember some of that from high school set theory, where you could technically have double infinites, but how could you have a countable infinite? If you can count it, isn't it technically bounded?

>>9813062
Never mind, I get it now. Appreciate you, frens.

>> No.9813482

>>9812771
Bump

>> No.9813963

Bump