Does Infinite Universe Theory Mean That Everything is Possible?

Daniel Ismail writes:

I wanted to take the time to commend you on your work in the paper Infinite Universe Theory.

As has been discussed for centuries, the concept of infinity has been difficult for the analytical mind to grasp, let alone accept. However, I have tried to apply my own theories and analogies to explaining my take on IUT and perhaps even expand on the theory.

I am of the opinion that the BBT has it's place within the IUT as I believe even you suggest "We need to abandon the idea of empty space and the view that systems actually could exist in isolation". The problem with the BBT is that it refers to a specific event in time. However, we know that for something to occur there has to be certain conditions for that event to occur. I believe that those conditions are unique to our "plane of existence" not that these conditions are in place due to the evolution of that universe i.e. age. Obviously, my theory taps into the multiverse theory. The way I try to explain my theory is by using the branch of mathematics not often used, probability. We know that every moment of our existence is possible. For that to be possible, I believe, all other possibilities must also be possible. So if we take our plane of existence as one possibility and we acknowledge that the possibilities are infinite then it stands to reason that every moment is infinitely possible. Now that's not the end though! In order for something to exist i.e. the probability, it must already exist in all it's forms and that number again is infinite. One way I have tried to explain it is by pointing out a stationary object (macroscopically) like a leaf on the ground. Now if you could freeze (take a photo for example) that moment, I theorize that in another plane that leaf is/was/will be slightly shifted in all planes and the number of possibilities is infinite as are the planes.

I won't bore you any more with my baseless theories and will close by saying that we as finite beings will always seek to find a finite solution. Just not me!

Daniel Ismail:

Thanks for the compliment. Your email shows that you have been doing a lot more than construction work. Right on! I bet that you would like "The Ten Assumptions of Science,” which also is Chapter 3 in "The Scientific Worldview." It addresses some of the comments you made. There are an infinite number of possibilities, as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Among the impossibilities are: the existence of two identical things and the explosion of something from nothing. These are handled by the Ninth Assumption, 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). Relativism, of course, is consupponible with the Eighth Assumption, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), which you read about in the IUT paper. The idea that something could explode out of nothing follows from the indeterministic assumption of creation. Its opposite is conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed), which likewise is consupponible with infinity, but clearly contradicts the BBT.

Be aware that all multiverse and parallel universe theories are oxymoronic—there can be only one infinite universe, by definition. Are there many parts to it? Of course. See our latest book, "Universal Cycle Theory" (www.universalcycletheory.com) hypothesizing an infinite hierarchy in which we speculate that our observable universe is part of the next vortex, which we call the “Local Mega-Vortex.” Note that no part of the infinite hierarchy abides any kind of banging of something from nothing. Even the aether-1 particles so important in gravitation and light transmission are formed from aether-2 particles, which are formed from aether-3 particles, ad infinitum. That is why there is no perfectly empty space and no solid matter and why non-existence is impossible in the infinite universe.

By the way, you have to be very careful with the use of probability. The Third Assumption, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything), treats probability theory as an attempt to use mathematics to measure what we do not know. Probability, like IUT in general, does not mean “everything is possible.” For instance, both humans and electrons have variations, with no two of them having the same mass. There is a distribution, usually described by a bell-shaped curve. This does not mean, however, that there really could be either a 10,000 lb. human or a 10 lb. electron even though probability theory might claim that to be possible.

For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].



1 comment:

Rick Doogie said...

"In order for something to exist i.e. the probability, it must already exist in all it's forms and that number again is infinite."

Daniel, I don't understand how you can assert this. This sounds like a remnant of the Platonic theory of Ideal Forms. A fantastic idea if ever there was one. In other words, an idea from the world of fantasy, not reality.

Just because we can dream up something doesn't make it real. If I'm shooting a billiard ball at a corner pocket, I visualize the future path of that billiard ball. If my ball follows the path I visualize, that doesn't mean that any infinite number of possible paths that I am able to visualize must already exist somehow. Sometimes we make a bad shot, often because of poor visualization or poor assessment of our physical surroundings. It's seems simply disingenuous to claim, "I made that shot in another reality, so pay up".

The assertion "everything is possible" is a confusion between what we can fantasize or conceptualize and what is actual reality. There is no rational basis for asserting that our concepts are exactly equal to physical reality. Quite the opposite is what we observe. Our concepts are in constant need of refinement if wish them to remain useful in predicting and manipulating physical reality.

We like to call all of our concepts "possibilities", but the universe says otherwise. My billiard ball has only one path in reality, despite any of my hopeful visualizing.