Depends on your definition of "eventually". It's not required that monkeys on typewriters eventually compose Shakespeare.

Not necessarily, there may not be actual, atoms involved in possible worlds, maybe most of it will be holographic.

What is possible and impossible will not merely occur in the multiverse "eventually." It is actually occurring in the multiverse now, and in the past, and in the future, and not. And all of this, a priori and posteriori. Whether or not "we" comprehend it is irrelevant. It does not matter if All likes or dislikes it when All purposely or unintentionally steps on humans. :smile: It is only important (and not) that we proceed as if it does matter. And even then, it's only important to us if it is.

Why so? There's a lot of what but no why, in your post.

Why so? — Varde

What do you mean by "Why so"? All of my post, or a particular part?

There's a lot of what but no why, in your post. — Varde

Same question. I did not take the OP as looking for a "what" or a "why." I took it as asking for a "can" to which I replied, in essence, yes and no.

But let me be equally obtuse and just say, because All is, after all, All. That is why. It would be difficult for All to not be happening. And not.

The reason "why" is, there does not have to be a reason why. But there is, and only we can speak to the "why" that we want. We can pick any reason. But the "why" that All wants (or doesn't want) is beyond us. And not.

I think my point here is this: There is that which we cannot or will not comprehend, and until we humble ourselves before that fact, and quit looking at everything from our point of view, we will be frustrated in our search, as we have been. Here we are, you and I, pounding on our keyboards, bound to what we have to work with. It's kind of like that recent conundrum of "we don't know what we don't know." That's what I'm talking about: Something about which I know nothing and, for all practical purposes, never will; at least until I realize it. Sure, in another multiverse, here and now, I know. But All is not perceiving itself through me as far as I can tell. It's perceiving itself through me as far as I can't tell. But if it's All, it's doing it. And not. I'm apparently the "not" part. And not.

"Certum est, quia impossibile"~Tertullian

But can we know all the possible worlds a priori?
This actually seems impossible... — A Realist

We can know all impossible worlds a priori – (as a rule) they are worlds constituted by contradictions and/or which consist of objects with inconsistent predicates (re: members of the empty set).

If the multiverse is infinite (in terms of quantity of universes) then I could see the case as to why anything would eventually happen, paradoxes aside.

Maybe that's why we are here? That's one answer to the question: we are here because, given enough time, circumstances arise in which intelligent life will arise.

But there's as yet no way to detect other universes.

Give it time, eventually an infinite number of monkeys will do that (i.e there exists N\in \mathbb{N} s.t for all n>N, n number of monkeys will succeed in the task). :-)

Can Schrodinger's cat be both dead and alive before I measure?

Doesn't it constitute as a true contradiction?

Can Schrodinger's cat be both dead and alive before I measure? — A Realist

Can a coin land on both heads or tails before I flip it?

Doesn't it constitute as a true contradiction?

No. "Schrödinger's Cat" is a thought-experiment, not a prediction (or retrodiction).

... we are here because, given enough time, circumstances arise in which intelligent life will arise. — Manuel

:chin:

It's not quite the same.
The coin is in a superposition of both before you collapse the wave function of the coin by taking a look at the coin.
If no one measures (gives a look at the coin) then the coin is in both states.
At least that's what a superposition means.

"Collapse the wavefunction" is anachronistic. Besides, "both dead and alive" (like numbers 0 and 1) refers to a superposition, or spectrum, of possibilities and not a "contradiction" in so far the possibilities are not also actualities in the same way, in the same place, at the same time. It's a reification fallacy to interpret "the wavefunction", which is statistical, as deterministic and then conclude from this – hasty generalization – that QM produces "true contradictions".

And since time doesn't pass, it's already occurring.

But can we know all the possible worlds a priori? — A Realist

Let's see. The simplest possible world is an empty set. Then there can be a world that is a set that contains an empty set. And another world that contains two empty sets. Or something more exciting: a world that is a set that contains an empty set and a set that contains two empty sets! The possibilities seem endless...

Can a coin land on both heads or tails before I flip it? — 180 Proof

If some of the smartest people in the world can imagine a state where the laws of physics break down (singularity?), then I can imagine a state where the principles of logic break down. But there is something I don't like about the way the language of "break down" is used. To use those words lends an unwarranted air of normalcy, superiority, even, to that state where physics and logic apply. I think quite the opposite.

That state where the laws of physics and logic do not apply is the normal, superior state. When that breaks down into it's component parts, we end up stuck in a prison of rules and shit that really don't apply in the "real" world. God chuckles. So funny it is, that he creates it for the humor found in experiencing that part of himself. Talk about self-depreciating humor. "Look how stupid I can be! I created man! :rofl: "

But homo sap, as he is wont to do, has spun it all to make himself the center of the universe, the center of perspective. He is, because he thinks. LOL! He is the measure of all things. LOL! When we imagine anything else, then something must have broken down. LOL! Man, are we chumps, or what?

I get it, JR, but as I haven't mentioned anything about a "breakdown" of the laws of physics or principles of logic I don't see how your satirical reply to that quote follows.

I get it, JR, but as I haven't mentioned anything about a "breakdown" of the laws of physics or principles of logic I don't see how your satirical reply to that quote follows. — 180 Proof

That's just it: It follows whether any of us say anything or not. This whole thread is about what can or cannot be, and all responses have been couched in terms of what we say instead of that which follows.

String theory, or perhaps a fancier word I can't think of that as you said describes "everything that can happen either has or will in an alternate dimension" theory.

Few paradoxes I can think of off the top of my head. The destruction of a universe or "the multiverse" as a whole. The possibility of someone transcending their universe and entering another one (like in the movie The One, pretty good btw more sci-fi than psychological thriller but it's there). Whatever started or "created" the universe, the idea of it "not happening" or happening in a dramatically different way such as a universe that is actually comprised of multiple universes or somehow "outside" the multiverse? These can all be, in my opinion, lazily disproven or made invalid by simply saying "that's not how it works" or these actions and their consequences are not included in "everything that can happen". Who knows. I'm no physicist.

What if, however. And bare with me now. The big bang/singularity actually occurred when one of these paradoxes occurred, due to it rather, thus resulting in a massive explosion that wiped out the old universe and created a new one, thus correcting the paradox. Perhaps in the old universe society advanced to interstellar travel, numerous advanced species interacting on an intergalactic scale, and nearly all scientific questions answered and adapted into devices and technology we can't even fathom. Then! Some scientists tried to push it further, perhaps there was talk of interplanetary war and sought the power to change spacetime and gain some kind of crazy military advantage that was then feasible. They succeeded alright.. they wiped out the enemy. And the entire universe in the process. This occurred approximately 14 billion years ago. We refer to this incident as the big bang or birth of the universe. But perhaps if it was simply it's death and rebirth? This is something we will never know. All I do know is, the more mankind plays God and coddles his science as it were alive, one day we may all pay a very dear price. Perhaps.. in an ironic twist of fate, ignorance is the only true way to save the planet, the galaxy, and entire universe. Who's to say.

I think this thread may be re-inventing a 140-year-old wheel; if you google "the eternal recurrence", or "Henri Poincare", you should find some informative links.

Is God possible?

This is an old and tired fallacy.

Consider the state of the universe to be represented by a real number: say 1.12365...

Given an infinite set of real numbers, there is no guarantee whatsoever that any specific real number is a member of that set. There are infinite numbers to choose from, so for instance the entire set may consist of numbers between 0.6 and 0.61. And moreover, numbers may be duplicated.

Consider the state of the universe to be represented by a real number: say 1.12365... — hypericin

You think you can represent a universe by a real number, the most non-real number of all (apart from the hyper reals)? A continuum can't be broken up in points.

I'm not staking my claim on whether you can or cannot. (Reals are continuous. Reals comprise of potentially infinite information, so I don't see why you cannot).

Either the universe can be so represented, or it cannot, because the universe is too complex. But if the latter, then my argument is only strengthened. If the op is not true of reals, then it is doubly untrue of the universe.

Either the universe can be so represented, or it cannot, because the universe is too complex. But if the latter, then my argument is only strengthened. — hypericin

nullum sensum facit

Thanks mr. G. :wink:

nullum sensum facit — jgill

No? It's true that I struggled to express myself here.

Either the state of the universe can be represented by a real or it cannot.

If it can: an infinite set of reals does not exhaust all possible reals. Therefore op is invalid.

If it cannot: universes are presumably too complex to be depicted by a single real. But then, even simpler objects than the universe, reals, do not meet the requirements of the op. Then, it would seem to hold that the universe (representable only by a set of reals?) would also not meet the requirement.

The only way I can see the op is true is if the states of the universe are merely countably infinite, and if they cannot repeat.

Is God possible? — Agent Smith

Well, describe "God" ...

Well, describe "God" ... — 180 Proof

The OOO God!

The OOO God! — Agent Smith

That's not a description, just a label. "Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent" are predicates you must define and describe what each entails in order to discern whether or not they are self-contradictory or inconsistent with one another and therefore whether or not an entity so predicated belongs to any 'possible world'. Btw, as Pascal suggests, no religion is founded on worshipping the tri-Omni "God of the philosophers".

Either the state of the universe can be represented by a real or it cannot. — hypericin

It would make more sense if you questioned whether the number of objects in the universe was finite or infinite, then countable or uncountable. What does it mean to say the "state of the universe"?

Sorry, makes no sense to me. If you're talking about dynamical systems and their states you must explain all the details.

That's not a description, just a label. "Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent" are predicates you must define and describe what each entails in order to discern whether or not they are self-contradictory or inconsistent with one another and therefore is an entity so predicated belongs to any 'possible world'. Btw, as Pascal suggests, no religion is founded on worshipping the tri-Omni "God of the philosophers". — 180 Proof

Ok. I thought you'd say that. How about a "God" that's relatively OOO? If that's still not good enough I invite you to describe/define a possible God that would have to exist in a multiverse.