PSI Blog 20120606 Does Infinite Universe Theory Mean That Everything is Possible?
Nowadays, some folks claim there might be another you in a parallel universe. The answer is NO.
Note how the consupponible scientific assumptions lead to the correct answer to this question. It is a lesson in how critical fundamental assumptions are to the survival or the demise of a paradigm.
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!"
[GB: 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.
This is an update of PSI Blog 20120606
To read this and its updates on Medium, click here.
On Medium.com you can read more than three essays monthly
by joining for $5/month.
Half of your membership fee supports the endowment of the
Progressive Science Foundation, which will continue advancing Infinite Universe
Theory as the ultimate replacement of the Big Bang Theory. You’ll also get full
access to every story on Medium. Just click here.
When on Medium, you can clap a lot of times to aid the
foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in
your inbox.
1 comment:
"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.
Post a Comment