How do you believe the universe started?

[Kilarin]

Even if you have an infinite set of universes, this does not mean that it necessarily contains "every possible universe", even if you include the caveat that they must all be distinct.

True, I realized my mistake and tried to correct it in my second post by saying: "if there are an infinite number of universes, we should expect an infinite subset of those universes where pots of flowers and blue whales were spontaneously emitted from black holes."

PLEASE correct me if I'm still wrong. I have trouble with infinity. BUT, my understanding is:

If on every planet someone rolls a million 6 sided dice, the odds of anyone coming up with one million sixes is mighty slim. (1/6)^1,000,000

But if you have an infinite number of planets (and therefore an infinite number of rollers) it becomes very probable, not only that there exist a finite number of planets that rolled all sixes, but that there are infinite number of planets that rolled all sixes.

[Foil]

Okay, I do see the corrections now.

In answer to your question, in your million-dice-rolls scenario, you're somewhat correct. The odds that someone will roll all sixes are better when it's done an infinite number of times.

...But it's still not a certainty.

[Krom]

...But it's still not a certainty.

Wrong, it is an absolute certainty, that's just how chaos + infinity works. If you roll the dice long enough they will eventually spit out ANY pattern you want to find no matter how remote the chances are. Infinity breaks any non-zero fraction or probability simply because any fraction or multiple of infinity is still exactly the same value: infinity. Anything with a non-zero chance of happening when put through infinite iterations not only can but will happen and it will happen an infinite number of times to boot.

[Spidey]

This is one of the most common misconceptions of infinity, that an infinite number of instances implies an infinite number of possibilities, it simply doesn’t.

It’s possible if there was an infinite number of universes, that they all would be mundanely similar.

Think of a infinite beach..now think of how the grains of sands would be shaped…would there be at least one grain that is exactly shaped like Brittany Spears…most likely not, more likely they all would be shaped like grains of sand, and most likely no two would be exactly the same.

It’s like the monkey on the keyboard theory, if you had an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards, you would most likely get an infinite amount of gibberish.

[Krom]

Speaking of monkeys typing on keyboards... :P

Yeah it doesn't mean an infinite number of possibilities, but it does imply that all possibilities that do exist will come to pass. And that is what I said, if it can happen it will happen when put through infinite iterations.

[Foil]

Anything with a non-zero chance of happening when put through infinite iterations not only can but will happen and it will happen an infinite number of times to boot.
...
all possibilities that do exist will come to pass
...
if it can happen it will happen when put through infinite iterations.

That's what most people think, Krom, but it's still wrong.

---------

The odds of a given result may approach 100% when infinitely iterated, but because you cannot rule out a priori the infinite set of always-negative results, it cannot be 100% certain.

(Remember, you're talking to a math geek, do you really want me to pull out the probability theory?)

[Spidey]

Here’s something to think about, speaking of infinite possibilities…

You roll a die an infinite number of times…and it always comes up “4”, although this is highly unlikely, it is possible under the rules here. (infinite possibilities) but this now precludes the possibility of any other combinations of cool sequences, such as 1,2,3,4,5,6...again and again. (so one possibility Happening rules out the others) EDIT...happy Foil?

Or is it all semantics…

Here are two statements that are true…

You drop a ball, in order for it to reach the floor it must first travel half the distance, then travel the other half.

You drop a ball, in order to reach the ground it must first travel half the distance, then it must travel half the remaining distance, so on and so on…never reaching the ground.

Infinity is a subject I have been thinking about for a very long time. If you want to really bend you mind consider this, infinity does not only apply to the macro world, but to the micro as well. That is to say that any point in space you can travel to an infinitely smaller point, which draws the conclusion that any given point in space is infinitely distant from any other point.

Does the ball ever reach the floor, in real life, or does it continue its journey downward, for eternity, traveling ever smaller distances? (that we cannot percieve)

[Jeff250]

But if you have an infinite number of planets (and therefore an infinite number of rollers) it becomes very probable, not only that there exist a finite number of planets that rolled all sixes, but that there are infinite number of planets that rolled all sixes.

I still have problems with your argument.

1. You say that infinite universes "completely destroys statistics and probability" because there are likely going to be some with "freak observers," but how could knowing how many universes there are independent and outside of this universe affect the probability of anything inside of this universe? Knowing the number of total universes does not change the probability of any of us being "freak observers" in this universe. So why should having more universes destroy statistics and probability for this universe?

2. Statistics and probability predict that it is extremely rare--but possible--for us to be "freak observers," so, if it turns out that we actually are, how is that a failure of statistics and probability?

[Jeff250]

Spidey, what you're describing is Zeno's Paradox, and that Wikipedia page mentions some commonly accepted solutions.

[Foil]

Here we go...

You roll a die an infinite number of times…and it always comes up “4”, although this is highly unlikely, it is possible under the rules here. (infinite possibilities) but this now precludes the possibility of any other combinations of cool sequences, such as 1,2,3,4,5,6...again and again. (so one possibility rules out the others)

You're mixing possibilities and results.

Yes, results rule out possibilities; if you get a result of "all 4s", all other possibilities are gone.

However, possibilities don't rule out possibilities; the possibility of "all 4s" does not rule out any of the others.

Here are two statements that are true…

You drop a ball, in order for it to reach the floor it must first travel half the distance, then travel the other half.

You drop a ball, in order to reach the ground it must first travel half the distance, then it must travel half the remaining distance, so on and so on…never reaching the ground.
...
Does the ball ever reach the floor, in real life, or does it continue its journey downward, for eternity, traveling ever smaller distances? (that we cannot percieve)
...
which draws the conclusion that any given point in space is infinitely distant from any other point.

Hehe, you're struggling with a form of one of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes]"Zeno's Paradoxes"[/quote].

A little Calculus (really, just a little work with an infinite limit) shows that the ball does indeed reach the ground, and in the time you'd expect.

The issue we have with feeling like the ball would never hit the ground is a mental limitation, because we have difficulty visualizing the limit of an infinite operation without getting sort of 'bogged down' along the way.

--------------

A lot of people struggle with these; I highly suggest taking a course in calculus, and maybe a little work in set algebra. Really clears up some of the common misconceptions.

[Spidey]

Jeff…

Yea, and some of what Krom was describing is Murphys law, so what’s your point…that I didn’t know that…lol

And Murpy’s law is “anything that ‘can’ happen, will”, not the bastardized version.

Foil…

I’m not struggling with anything, my “point” was that once something “possible” happens, it can rule out the other possibilities.

If we are just talking possibilities, then it’s all moot, and pointless, of course it all starts with possibilities…then something actually happens!

[Foil]

Gotcha. I misunderstood you; I thought you were seeing some kind of inconsistency.

----------

Is the issue with Zeno's Paradox (going halfway, then half of that, then half of that...) clear, though? It seemed that you didn't have that one resolved.

[Spidey]

The point of the paradox was not to solve it, but to explore the concept and how our language limits our understanding.

Note I said…Or is it all semantics…

[Kilarin]

Knowing the number of total universes does not change the probability of any of us being "freak observers" in this universe.

We don't know what the odds are for there being "normal observers". It's a point that's very much up for debate. We DO know that the odds of their being a "freak observer" are very low. So, if there are only a finite number of universes, then there are probably NO "freak observers", and that makes it more reasonable to assume we are "normal observers".

BUT, if there are an infinite number of universes, then, despite the low odds, there are probably an infinite number of "freak observers". And since we do NOT know the odds of there being "normal observers", we can't rule out the possibility that we are "freak observers"

Statistics and probability predict that it is extremely rare--but possible--for us to be "freak observers," so, if it turns out that we actually are, how is that a failure of statistics and probability?

You are correct. I phrased it poorly. It follows the laws of probabilities exactly. What I meant was that we could no longer count on probability and statistics to rule out highly unlikely events. You are absolutely correct that the odds of them happening has not changed. BUT, if there are an infinite number of universes, then it is LIKELY that in some universe somewhere a fully functioning brain popped out of a black hole. It is LIKELY that in some universe quantum fluctuations in the vacuum produced a baby grand piano out of thin air. It's not likely anywhere in particular, but it IS likely that it happened somewhere, probably in an infinite number of somewheres.

And I find the thought that there are probably an infinite number of universes where a blue whale spontaneously appears out of nothing... repugnant. NOT impossible, just repugnant.

The odds that someone will roll all sixes are better when it's done an infinite number of times. ...But it's still not a certainty.

Thank you VERY much for the mathematical clarification!

[Jeff250]

And I find the thought that there are probably an infinite number of universes where a blue whale spontaneously appears out of nothing... repugnant. NOT impossible, just repugnant.

I find it neat.

[Bet51987]

Two of my favorite scientists are Michio Kaku and Andre Linde who are both highly respected theoretical physicists I've read some of their books that have explained the Multiverse theory. Although there is no proof, their work shows that this scenario is plausible.

To quote Michio Kaku to the common layman:

\"Our Universe may be a 'soap bubble' of some sort existing with other soap bubbles. And the multiverse is like a bubble bath with universes popping into existence, budding, sprouting, colliding with other universes.\"

Some feel that those \"collisions\" are what sets off big bang offshoots which form another universe.

After reading those books I have no problem believing that other universes could be out there next to ours because to believe that our universe was a one time rare event doesn't seem correct.

@Foil.... I wasn't talking about \"in\" our universe because there is no universe inside ours. And, the LHC has the potential of adding more to the idea of a multiverse... So I will double my bet.

Bee

[MehYam]

I wanna chime in on the \"irreducible complexity\" argument:

Eyes do have reducible complexity, there are plenty of more basic forms of eye out there. But this is not the main point, I think there are two more general facts that people miss:

1) attacking science or scientific ideas this way doesn't weaken science's stature as way of explaining origins. It strengthens it. When you try to tear down a theory, you improve it. You're practicing critical thinking, you're practicing science. Nobody's going to start a war or oppress or kill if your idea's wrong (or right). Contrast this with non-scientific ways of thinking.

2) just because you're practicing science doesn't mean you're practicing it well. Yes, the idea of irreducible complexity was a good question when it was first posed, but it's been answered long ago. Be humble and aware when you don't really know what you're talking about. This applies to arguing multiverses, parallel universes, etc. None of us on this board understand the math behind it, we can't really have a well-informed debate on it.

Yeah, it may be a cop-out to say that because of the multiverse, anything and everything is acceptable. But it's also a cop-out to believe it's a cop-out.

[SilverFJ]

To be honest, you all seem to have been at the bong too long this morning.

[MehYam]

not long enough

[Kilarin]

attacking science or scientific ideas this way doesn't weaken science's stature as way of explaining origins. It strengthens it.

Agreed.

the idea of irreducible complexity was a good question when it was first posed, but it's been answered long ago

Which particular counter argument are you supporting? This statement by itself isn't very useful or informative. Ptolemy answered the Heliocentric theory long ago. Because someone thinks they have countered a scientific argument doesn't meant the discussion is over. We need details if we are to actually gain any information or LEARN anything from what you've said. Otherwise, it's very unscientific.

Be humble and aware when you don't really know what you're talking about. This applies to arguing multiverses, parallel universes, etc. None of us on this board understand the math behind it, we can't really have a well-informed debate on it.

That is a VERY bad attitude towards science. If you just assume other folks are right "because they know more than you do", you can be led to believe ANYTHING. And you might be interested to know that we have a few people with math degrees here, as well as a few with scientific degrees.

The proper way to learn ISN'T to just say "I don't have the background to discuss that topic". It's to discuss the topic to the limit of your understanding and ask for further correction/explanation from those who know more specifics.

[MehYam]

Which particular counter argument are you supporting?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibl ... _community

That is a VERY bad attitude towards science. If you just assume other folks are right "because they know more than you do"...

Isn't being humble and realistic about how informed you are is a good attitude? You don't have to surrender the benefit of the doubt just because someone's outstudied you. It's okay to say "I don't know".

[MehYam]

Which particular counter argument are you supporting?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibl ... _community

That is a VERY bad attitude towards science. If you just assume other folks are right "because they know more than you do"...

Isn't being humble and realistic about how informed you are a good attitude? Still, you don't have to surrender the benefit of the doubt just because someone's outstudied you. It's okay to say "I don't know".

[Kilarin]

Sorry for the necro post, I've been away for a bit.

Which particular counter argument are you supporting?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibl ... _community

Some of their objections are legitimate points, but I've feel they've already been addressed. I've commented on most of them already in other thread here. And some of their points are straw men that just show the authors do not actualy understand ID, IC, or SC. Especially when you wander through the discussion section. They waste a lot of time arguing against the philosophy instead of the science.

Of course, the other side is often guilty of this as well. Witness how much time "Expelled" wasted trying to connect Darwinism and the Nazi's. It doesn't MATTER if the connection is true or not, the philosophical issues have nothing to do with weather the science is good or not.

Isn't being humble and realistic about how informed you are a good attitude?

Absolutely. But there is a difference between admitting a lack of complete knowledge and simply ceding the argument based on authority. We were stuck with an Aristotelian view of the cosmos for centuries because everyone said "You aren't smart enough to question Aristotle"

Still, you don't have to surrender the benefit of the doubt just because someone's outstudied you. It's okay to say "I don't know".

Yep. It's perfectly ok to say "I don't know", and it's also ok to say "I disagree, educate me enough to convince me I'm wrong"