|
Greetings:
I stumbled across your blog while doing a Google search on theories of the infinite Universe. I was wondering if you could help me w/a (hopefully simple, commonly discussed) idea:
It seems to me that, in an Infinite Universe, everything that is Possible would have to occur, at least once.
[Each occurrence in the infinite universe is unique. Whether something is possible or not depends on univironmental conditions: the state of the microcosm with respect to its macrocosm. Because both the microcosm and the macrocosm contain an infinite number of submicrocosms and supermicrocosms in continuous motion, each possibility occurs only once. On the other hand, according to our assumption of RELATIVISM (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things.), similar possibilities occur wherever there are similar univironments. Since no two microcosms can be identical, however, there will never be another you at any time and in any place.]
What brought this idea up is a discussion on the likelihood of there being life out there that approximates ours. I realize that the universe is not, in fact, infinite, so for the purposes of this postulate, I'm just interested in what the great minds of the ages have theorized/concluded. I figured you would know.
[Even if you still believed in the Big Bang Theory, the number of stars is so great (over 1024) that the possibility of life on other planets is a near certainty. With the infinite universe, of course, it would be a certainty. Planetary systems have been shown to be relatively common. A planet just needs to be at approximately the right distance from its sun to get the right amount of radiation for biopoesis, the production of life from inorganic chemicals. BTW: It is not a fact that the universe is finite. By its nature, that statement must always be an assumption, not a fact. It is a fact that the light from distant galaxies is red shifted. How one interprets that empirical data is dependent on the assumptions one uses. If one uses finity, it is because of the Doppler Effect and the universe is expanding; if one uses infinity, it is because of absorption and the universe is not expanding. More on this in my next book…]
Thanks in advance!
G:
Thanks for your reply. . .some really fascinating concepts.
However. . .I should've probably been a bit more specific. What I'm wondering is: in an infinite universe, would there necessarily Have to be a planet with bioforms close to (or for that matter, equivalent to) ours?
[I don’t see why not, although they would not be identical to ours. Carbon is one of the more common elements in the universe and because the carbon-based biosystem evolved once, it is likely to evolve elsewhere wherever similar conditions exist.]
I suppose to some extent this is a purely mathematical/statistical problem; in modeling a universe in which infinite boundaries are assumed, would you necessarily have to find every possible combination of matter?
Does this imply a duplication of that pattern must exist (e.g., organisms with DNA like ours)?
[Yes. Here is a simple example: soluble calcium, when in the presence of soluble sulfate forms calcium sulfate. Slow evaporation of the water necessary for solubilization allows beautiful crystals to form. This happens every single time those particular microcosms are brought together, although no two of the crystals are identical.
The “pattern” that you mention is biopoesis, the transformation of inorganic chemicals into organic chemicals capable of replication. The transformation would occur, producing DNA, wherever carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are brought together under proper temperature, pressure, etc. Although biopoesis occurred on Earth millions of years ago, the reactions involved are so common that a similar pattern occurs at present: carcinogenesis. In my opinion, every organism and every biological system containing C, H, O, and N has the potential to develop cancer. That is why cancer is so intractable, non-communicable, and inevitable. The very reactions that brought us into being have the power to take us out of being.]
Further: does the scientific "community" such as it is have a consensus on this question, or is it hotly debated?
[Sorry, I am not the expert on that. I doubt that there is a consensus. Also, I don’t think that it gets much play in the curriculum because of its obvious conflict with scripture.]
Thanks,
Anon