But first, you would have to motivate this new tale of yours about multiverses of multiverses where a random process can then turn out its most unlikely possible result with certainty. — apokrisis
The odds of landing on the face marked Earth might be 1/∞. The odds of landing on the face marked Earth an infinite number of times in a row is another matter. — apokrisis
So in a multiverse of multiverses, you would almost surely get your one multiverse in which every planet wound up being replica Earth, faithful down to us speaking in Korean about flower arranging, or whatever other modal possibility we could imagine. — apokrisis
A multiverse with a die that produced your selective outcome could not be believed to be random. There would be no proper basis for such a presumption. It would be mad not to believe the die was loaded. — apokrisis
That one makes a bit of a hash of the Copernican principle at least. Ossipoff's initial post on the prior page was such a violation, but there is no such principle in the view he was supporting there.Even in Euclidean space, as soon as you introduce something to break the symmetry, you already have some kind of "preference." For example, in a universe that is a flat space with one black hole there is an obvious "center." — SophistiCat
The type-3 ones are also not other universes, for more or less the same reasons.I agree they are not other universes. — apokrisis
You mean there is a pile of near-replicas to go with each actual replica. Yes. Those aren't so far away, depending on how loose you allow your definition of 'near replica' to be.So spatial infinity would seem to guarantee that there should be an infinity of Earths where you and me are having this exact discussion - plus every other even faintly similar or utterly different interactions. We could be discussing hair-do's, speaking in Korean, typing random sequences. And the fact any of those might be the case would mean that all those varieties of cloned Earths would have to be infinite in number themselves. There would be an infinite number of replica planets with us speaking Korean, etc.
You seem to be apeirophobic *. I followed the argument until it was suddenly labelled madness.There just is no end to the madness once you let actual infinity run riot in your ontology.
Of course. Any replica of Earth would be the exact same age. A replica cannot begin to form by chance for example, centuries from now on the other side of our galaxy.Anyway, even in a spatially infinite universe, we would presume that it all expands and cools in the same way. And cooling steadily - or in fact, exponentially - removes material possibilities. If every portion of the universe is losing energy density at a shared rate, that means there is only a tiny time window for replica earths to actually form.
Of course. Any replica of Earth would be the exact same age. A replica cannot begin to form by chance for example, centuries from now on the other side of our galaxy. — noAxioms
Interesting. Perhaps we could define a duplicate as not just a state, but one that persists for a second or so as a natural duplicate should. A Boltzmann Earth duplicate ceases to be a duplicate immediately just like the brain ceases to be a brain in a momentI'm not sure about this. I wonder if the principle behind the Boltzmann brain hypothesis can also apply here. It is more likely that an Earth-like planet spontaneously forms than for a Hubble volume to grow and develop as ours is believed to have done. — Michael
It's exactly as likely as any other outcome: 1/∞. — Michael
Having an infinite number of every planet is no more likely than having an infinite number of just one planet. — Michael
This is a philosophy discussion group. When things seem unarguably right, that's when you know there must be the whole flip-side to the story. Dialectics always rules. So someone's nonsense is always the start of someone else's sense. — apokrisis
Of course it was also posted that contemporary physics puts a finite size on the universe — noAxioms
Secondly, the level-1 multiverse only requires a finite universe sufficiently large that light hasn't had time to get from one point to some other point in the age of the universe.
By the way, I'd expect that if an infinite universe means that there are other civilizations in the universe, then the nearest one is so far away that, for all practical purposes, including communication or transportation, it's the same, for us, as if it weren't there. — Michael Ossipoff
How do you get this?
Could there not be any other civilizations in this universe, if the universe is infinite?
You just got finished saying there is an exact copy of us out there, given infinite space.
Maybe, if, as a form of high-tech quarantine, our belligerent and aggressive species, along with its planet, has been re-located into a universe that was specifically designed, by an advanced technology, to not have any life other than us.
This statement is quite a break from the usual stance I've seen from you. You gone all ID on us?
Tegmark for instance described a universe not in need of creation, not designed, nor one where we are special.
Isn't this how to describe the probability that an infinite number of coin tosses always lands heads, or always lands tails, or lands once on heads and every other time on tails, or [insert any particular outcome]? — Michael
↪fishfry As I said, that was me being lazy. I didn't want to figure out how to do MathJax. — Michael
In infinite probability spaces, probability zero events may still happen. Suppose you flip infinitely many coins and they come up in any sequence whatsoever: hthhthththththhthttthhthththt... say. A completely random sequence. What's the probability? Well, the prob that flip 1 is h is 1/2. The prob that flip 2 is t is 1/2. Etc. The prob of the first n flips being exactly what they are is 1/2^n, and that goes to zero as n goes to infinity. Every particular sequence has probability zero. Do you follow that point? All heads is just as likely as alternating heads and tails which is just as likely as the random sequence above. The probability is zero. Yet SOME probability zero sequence must occur. — fishfry
I don't see how my argument is any different to your argument here: — Michael
The introduction of the infinitely-sided die is the moment this thread went completely off the rails. The entire foundation of the duplicate earth theory is that there are only finitely many states possible in a given region of space. That's essential to the argument. Drop that assumption and there is no argument at all. — fishfry
Even with finite states does it work? Given an ordinary coin and an infinite series, is it almost certain that there will be an infinite number of heads and an infinite number of tails? — Michael
limn→∞f(1/n)=0 — Michael
This sort of makes the assumption that we're worth saving. How can a species that has the collective maturity of an ebola outbreak be the thing they want to save? If there's a test, we certainly have yet to pass it.It's difficult to believe that such beings would observe events on our planet without instituting the policing that would protect us from eachother. ...as in Clarke's Childhood's End. — Michael Ossipoff
Had a hard time picking out a consistent point being made in that long post — noAxioms
t, so I picked this little bit out:
. — Michael OssipoffIt's difficult to believe that such beings would observe events on our planet without instituting the policing that would protect us from eachother. ...as in Clarke's Childhood's End
This sort of makes the assumption that we're worth saving. How can a species that has the collective maturity of an ebola outbreak be the thing they want to save? If there's a test, we certainly have yet to pass it.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.