Any sequence of numbers can be described as a sequence of a polynomial function. Not only by one precise, exact and fitting polynomial function, but actually an infinite number of them. — god must be atheist
I guess nothing is completely random. — Gregory
There seems to me something infinite about randomness. — Gregory
So the next successive number can always be predicted. Or else explained. — god must be atheist
This test you propose is not the one that's going to work in establishing randomness of a sequence of numbers. — god must be atheist
Can't establish it if you don't know what it is. What (do you say) it is? — tim wood
Yes, after the fact. The point is, not before. — tim wood
It's impossible with any sequence of numbers what comes next. The psychological / IQ tests that rely on this are all flawed. — god must be atheist
Maybe you could provide a citation for this assessment. :chin: — jgill
It's impossible with any sequence of numbers what comes next. The psychological / IQ tests that rely on this are all flawed.
— god must be atheist
Maybe you could provide a citation for this assessment. :chin: — jgill
Also, if an infinite number of universes exist, there are an infinite number of universes where incredible fantastical coincidences are the norm, not the exception. And there would be infinitely many such worlds, so the set of "worlds with extreme amounts of fantastical coincidences" would equal the set of "worlds without extreme amounts of fantastical coincidence". — RogueAI
If you didn't know which kind of world you're in (and how would you?), there's a 50/50 chance you're in the world of crazy coincidences. — RogueAI
For example 3478907834617856 is explainable by chance. And what I mean by that is there's no competing theory that does better than "chance" for that string of numbers. — RogueAI
When physicists use the word infinity they must mean something quite different than what mathematicians mean, else they'd immediately have to ask themselves what is the transfinite cardinality of the set of universes, and whether the universes can be well-ordered, and so forth, or at the very least they'd have to simultaneously note that standard set theory does not apply to their use of the word infinity.
Since you are speculating that there might be infinitely many universes, why don't you suggest answers to those questions, if only to challenge your own thinking.
And what is your chain of logic that, " if an infinite number of universes exist, there are an infinite number of universes where incredible fantastical coincidences are the norm ..." What's the argument that this is so?
After all there are infinitely many positive integers 1, 2, 3, ... yet none of them is a purple flying elephant, at least as far as we know. Every positive integer is subject to the Peano axioms. So we already have evidence that your claim is (at least arguably, pending some kind of argument) false.
Really? Have you got an argument for this?
But I have already pointed out earlier that we ARE in a world of crazy coincidences. From the big bang to your being here reading this requires a chain of the most unlikely coincidences and accidents. So your statement here is unsupported and vacuous.
You know I've seen famous physicist Leonard Susskind talk and write about infinity (two separate instances that I have in mind) where he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. Physicists are very imprecise in their notions of infinity.
I don't know about any of that. But many cosmologists advocate for a multiverse with infinitely many universes where the values of the physical constants are different. — RogueAI
I
What's with the snark? My reply to you in this thread didn't even have a question in it. I was making a bunch of points about infinite universes. — RogueAI
I
The values of the physical constants are different. I'm not talking about a set of identical infinite universes. For example, there would be universes (an infinitely many of them) consisting of nothing but Boltzmann Brains constantly popping into and out of existence. — RogueAI
I
Purple flying elephants are physically impossible. Picture worlds where people win the lottery 20 times in a row, and people always go into spontaneous cancer remission after they drink from a certain fountain. Erosion patterns constantly spelling out the truths of the natural world, E=MC2. Stuff like that. — RogueAI
Yes. Countable infinite sets are equal and there are infinitely many worlds where the laws of nature are real, and where the laws of nature are nothing but descriptions of fantastical coincidences happening over and over again. If you don't know what set you're in, and both sets are equal, it's a 50/50 chance if you're guessing. — RogueAI
Aren't you just the pleasure to talk to. — RogueAI
Fish, if a lottery was being run for the first time, and you were the manager, and the winning ticket's numbers were 314159265359, what would you conclude? — RogueAI
Given any finite sequence whatever, it can be continued with absolutely any next number and fitted to a polynomial. — fishfry
Such sequences are good for pattern recognition. — jgill
Fishfry, my point isn't about whether the multiverse is infinite or not. I'm OK assuming we don't know one way or the other and will likely never know. — RogueAI
My point was about the ramifications if there are infinitely many universes with different physical constants. IF that is the case, the set of universes "everyone is a Boltzmann Brain" is infinite and the set "everyone is a real person" is infinite, — RogueAI
and they're both countably infinite sets, — RogueAI
so how would you decide which set you're in if you don't know? It's a coin toss, in that situation. — RogueAI
If the multiverse isn't infinite, none of that applies, of course, but philosophy is about speculation, so I'm speculating here. — RogueAI
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.