/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4229583]

Let's assume for a second that the universe is infinite.
If that would be the case, there must be infinite exact copies of the Earth, including you, sitting in front of your PC (or Mac...) reading and exact copy of this very comment...
Thoughts on this?

[Anonymous No.4229598]

it is possible, but infinite universe doesn't automatically mean everything is copied an infinite number of times.
and people are going to get mad at your assumption.because sci cant into theoreticals.

[Anonymous No.4229602]

>Let's assume
Let's not.

[Oxy No.4229610]

>>4229602

Multiverse (in theory, at least) suggests infinite number of universes. An infinite number of universes means, for all intents and purposes, an infinite number of outcomes.

[Anonymous No.4229619]

>>4229610
The Multiverse Goes through every single possible and impossible different choice in each different universe, at one point in your life you may have had a choice between a dick in your anus or a dick in the mouth, in one, you take it in the mouth, in this one, you take it in the anus, in another you took 3,000,000 dicks in both holes.

[Anonymous No.4229624]

>>4229610
That doesn't imply non-uniqueness. Consider the interval <span class="math"> {[0,1] \in \mathbb R} [/spoiler]. There are uncountably infinite real numbers in this interval, but they are also all unique. Extrapolate this idea to the multiverse.

[Anonymous No.4229625]

>>4229583
>universe
>infinite
pick exactly one

the universe is a member of a multiverse, comprised of bubble universes. pic related.

the multiverse is a member of a portion of an infinite true vacuum that has yet to decay to ground state.

this true vacuum, supposedly, has an infinite number of multiverses in an 'omniverse'.

[Anonymous No.4229630]

>>4229625
But what if there are an infinite number of omniverses inside of a megaverse?

[Anonymous No.4229639]

>>4229630
but the omniverse is the true vacuum. that isn't exactly feasible. if there was another level of complexity, we would be living inside of a pseudo-multiverse, which would be inside of an omniverse.

[Anonymous No.4229640]

Not necessarily. 0.7 recurring is infinite, that doesn't mean it contains every possible sequence of numbers. 4.16 recurring is too, it doesn't contain every possible sequence. I can't think of more complex irrationals that are infinite without containing sequences twice, but they exist.

[Anonymous No.4229660]

[Anonymous No.4229661]

>>4229624
the multiverse isn't a mathematical set.

string theory predicts an exact duplicate copy of a person at an estimated distance of <span class="math">10^{29^{29^{29}}}[/spoiler] m away in some random direction from their current position.

[Anonymous No.4229668]

>>4229661
[citation needed]
If you say "it's complicated" I will hunt you down and skullfuck you until you stop breathing

[Anonymous No.4229689]

>>4229661
>string theory

0/10, come back with real science next time

[Anonymous No.4229707]

>>4229583
Idiot. The real numbers are infinite yet do not contain infinite copies of me, or of any one of the numbers it contains... Think then type.

[Anonymous No.4229722]

>>4229661

>the multiverse isn't a mathematical set.

Please leave.

[Anonymous No.4229744]

Just because something is infinite doesn't mean everything must happen. Two wheels with spokes can spin over each other and the spokes will never align in the same place twice forever, just make their spin rates two different primes. An infinite string of 1s never contains a 2 just because it is infinite.

Infinity is made-up bullshit, but it isn't *that* bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4229754]

>There must be

No. Nothing dictates that there must.

For all you know there is an infinite amount of unique occurrences.

[Anonymous No.4229755]

>>4229744
>Just make their spin rates two different primes

Erm, no. Multiply one by the other, and that's the number of spins until they sync.

[> No.4229766]

>sitting in front of your PC (or Mac...)

A mac is a PC, anus.

[Anonymous No.4229782]

doesnt this shit implies that there must be an infinite amount of super cosmic dudes that want to destroy us, and a infinite amount of other super cosmic dudes that defends us as dark nights, and at the same time other supercosmic guys that destroy the guys that protect us and that in an eternal circle? isnt that a paradox?

[Oxy No.4229803]

>>4229624

That's a wholly irrelevant point. Numerically, in terms of their symbolic "name," the number we assign them, they're unique entities. That doesn't mean the exact same thing can't be happening in two of those intervals; only that they're numerically separate entities. That math doesn't prove anything, and if you truly think it does, you should consider majoring in English.

[Anonymous No.4229804]

>mfw there is no legitimate reason to believe in either an infinite universe or a multiverse and you're all just wanking yourselves off to popsci concepts with no real grounding in legitimate science

[Oxy No.4229839]

>>4229804

>yfw M-Theory posits interaction of "branes" to explain the big bang

>yfw there are an infinite number with a static number of dimensions constantly colliding

>hurrdurr popsci

>English major detected

[Anonymous No.4229851]

>>4229839
> string theory
> science fiction
You must select both.

[Anonymous No.4229864]

>>4229851
this

you are fucking kidding me with this 'brane' crap. what the hell is with the estimates on the size of the universe? seriously, string theory is essentially kaku's lsd trip

[Anonymous No.4229865]

ok heres the scene... theres a galaxy lets say 25 million light years from here right? essentially when looking at that particular galaxy your looking at what it looked like 25 million years ago right? prove to me its still there

[Oxy No.4229870]

>>4229851

>Unification of gravity and quantum mechanics

>Not string theory


Pick one.

[Anonymous No.4229880]

>If that would be the case, there must be infinite exact copies of the Earth

False. The integers are infinite, are there an infinite number of exact copies of the number 1 in the set of integers?

[Oxy No.4229882]

>>4229865

You can't.

[Anonymous No.4229885]

>>4229870
>HurRRRuDdurrr DURRRRRR WE'RE MADE OF PIECES OF DIFFEOMORPHIC TOPOLOGICAL PASTA
>implying no LQG
>implying no BEC vacuum
>implying no QFT in curved space-time
etc

[Anonymous No.4229890]

This is also supported by the string theory, which states that there are an infinite number of universes in which there exists an infinite numbers of possibilites for everything.

So in another universe I'm reading this with a spiked dildo in my left nostril.

[Anonymous No.4229895]

>>4229880
except, even if we consider the multiverse a set, there are duplicate copies of universes as quantum fluctuations can potentially occur in the same deterministic fashion and spark identical conditions of inflation, physical constants, etc, of ours. everything would be identical if we look at it from this fashion. no differences down to the planck length.

this falls under the same fate as the mind-body problem. if i were to destroy our universe, one exactly identical to ours has a probability of 1 of existence.

[Anonymous No.4229892]

>4229882 exactly. my point being-how do we kno we're not the last living things in the universe?

to many questions too mnay qutseoins to many quetsinos

[Oxy No.4229894]

>>4229885

>Criticizing string theory

>Not theoretical physicist

[Anonymous No.4229900]

>>4229894
>physics major
close enough

even when i have my phd i will still criticize string theory, it's time independent.

[Anonymous No.4229902]

>Let's assume for a second that the universe is infinite.

We have no compelling reason to do this.

>>4229865

If we can infer that it's in motion when we look at it, we can be pretty sure it is NOT still there now.

[Oxy No.4229907]

>>4229900

I yield to your triple dubs. Seriously though why don't you think it's viable? I've never gotten a different perspective.

[Anonymous No.4229926]

>>4229907
(not the same guy, but...) no experimental predictions have come true. it is essentially a mathematical model that holds logic. it isn't exactly 'reality' until we see things experimentally. the only truly phenomenal discovery that has come out of string theory is gauge/gravity duality with CFT and anti de sitter space. this is absolutely mind boggling, but it most likely hints at a fundamentally different physical reality as opposed to string theory.

[Oxy No.4229935]

>>4229926

That's very interesting. What gives things like loop quantum gravity sway over string theory though? Has LQG made any novel predictions that we've found to be true?

[Anonymous No.4229947]

>>4229926
You mean it isn't exactly "science" until we see things experimentally.Science doesn't show us reality, for all we know photons are just something that models reality.And experiments can only fail to disprove something, not prove it.

[Anonymous No.4229950]

>>4229947

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.4229954]

>implying that the universe hasn't already been proven to be finite.

It greatly disturbs me honestly. Imagining my self, or a copy of my self somewhere else doing something else, suffering the same as I did in the beginning years of my life... Ugh.

[Anonymous No.4229957]

>>4229935
it's purely the rational perspective of the model once you go to such a theoretical basis of physics. for me, personally, 'strings' just do not sound viable- or even testable for that matter.

>>4229947
>You mean it isn't exactly "science" until we see things experimentally
no, anything conclusive under mathematical grounds and fundamental principles of logic can be trivially considered 'science'

>Science doesn't show us reality
this purely depends on your stance. when we reach the point of which an observable can only be identified on a statistical basis, it's up to you. but, when the statistics are so unbelievably accurate on their small and large scale predictions in response to experimental evidence, it's quite fascinating. thus, many consider the wave function and the wave-like nature of matter a physical reality.

> for all we know photons are just something that models reality
we see the particle-like properties of photons. einstein demonstrated this, and his results were experimentally reproducible. we also demonstrated the wave-like nature of light, showing that we might be able to unify these two under field excitations.

>and experiments can only fail to disprove something, not prove it.
this is a logical fallacy that haunts all of science. i'm not even bothering with an argument on the subject.

[Anonymous No.4229968]

>>4229954
the universe is finite! we can see this with clear evidence of the big bang, with CMB, with the laws of entropy! get your facts straight on the definition of a 'bubble universe', 'universe', 'multiverse', 'omniverse', etc...

[Anonymous No.4230082]

>>4229957
>no, anything conclusive under mathematical grounds and fundamental principles of logic can be trivially considered 'science'
I was led to believe that only things that have been proven experimentally in a repeatable manner are qualified as science.
>this is a logical fallacy that haunts all of science. i'm not even bothering with an argument on the subject.
Could you? your other arguments have given me much to think about and I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject.

[Anonymous No.4230898]

>>4229660
/thread

[Anonymous No.4230904]

>>4229957
Haven't there been many accurate theories that furthered science, but were eventually disregarded?

[Anonymous No.4230909]

if there are an infinite number of natural numbers, there must be infinite natural numbers with the value 1. that's how retarded you sound, cockwrangler

[Anonymous No.4230915]

>>4229583
why is that? Why coudln't it be that the universe is absolutely empty beyond what we can see?

[Anonymous No.4230950]

Yes, that would be the implication.

[Anonymous No.4230965]

This is one of the theories about alternative "dimensions." Type III or some such.

If the universe is infinite, then it stands to reason that all possible combinations of matter/energy exist.

[Anonymous No.4233250]

and neither do i...

[Anonymous No.4233253]

>>4229583
infinity is not a naturally occuring number

[Anonymous No.4233258]

>>4233253
>naturally occurring number
This has no meaning.

[Anonymous No.4233264]

>>4233258
it means nothing in nature is infinite dumbsshit

[Anonymous No.4233276]

>>4233264
That is an empirical claim which lacks evidence. Try the following board instead:
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.4233279]

>>4233276
>has no idea how basic mathematics work in regards to physics.

empirical. that's a big word for a highschool kid

[Anonymous No.4233283]

>>4233279
Again, if you want to make empirical claims without evidence, then >>>/x/ is exactly what you're looking for. >>>/b/ if you want to name-call and troll.

[Anonymous No.4233286]

>>4233283
>without evidence
>theoretics
>evidence

lol, if you mean argument. then no. you have clearly demonstrated you have no concept of what 1+1 is. I'm not gonna talk about infinity to a child.

[Anonymous No.4233294]

>>4233286
You persist with the name calling ("child"). >>>/b/

You try to shift the argument away from the original contention. The original contention was that nothing in nature is infinite. That is an empirical claim. Empirical claims require evidence. "1+1", and the theory of math in general, is a non-sequitir. Obviously you don't need evidence for claim of math. Again, trolling goes to >>>/b/.

[Anonymous No.4233301]

>>4233294
oh wow, look at this one busting out all the big words.

bottomline is this. you have no argument. if you did you wouldve proven me wrong already. nothing would give you more satisfaction than that. so the only reason you don't do it is because you cant

its sad that you actually believe the crap that comes out of your mouth.

stay classy

[Anonymous No.4233303]

>>4233301
But I did prove you wrong. I demonstrated that you made an empirical claim without backing evidence.

[Anonymous No.4233313]

>>4233303
no. I made a claim. and you had a problem with that claim.

a problem I can't care less about.

it's very simple, what I say is right, what you say is wrong. there's nothing anyone can do to make it otherwise.

I feel no desire or have no need to "prove" to you anything. if you want to argue. go argue with yourself

[Anonymous No.4233319]

>>4233313
This is the science board. Science is the art and practice of learning which demands evidence for empirical claims. As you have none for your empirical claim, you automatically lose.

[Anonymous No.4233320]

>>4229583

The probability is minimal. The probability increases as time from x to y has elapsed increase.

[Anonymous No.4233332]

>>4233319
>LOLOLOLOL I R WINNAR LOLOLOLOL

has your balls dropped yet?

and I'll help myself >>b

[Anonymous No.4233340]

>>4233332
Well, thank you for going to >>>/b/.