Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Spider

The Multiverse Hypothesis

Recommended Posts

Us existing is one possible state of the universe. I think the assertion is that all possible states of the universe exist, ie where we aren't around. This is the opposite of fine tuning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Us existing is one possible state of the universe. I think the assertion is that all possible states of the universe exist, ie where we aren't around. This is the opposite of fine tuning.

 

The problem I see with that assertion, is that there is an infinite amount of possible states, but what can exist in reality is but a finite amount of possible states, meaning that only some of the possible states are created out of the infinite possibilities. Therefore, a multiverse generator would need to have a selection process that is fine-tuned enough so that at least one of the life-enabling possible states get selected out of the infinite other possibilities.

 

The selection process being "fine-tuned" means that the way it selects the possible states can't be purely random or accidental. Rather, there has to be a certain order behind it's selection, or a particular mechanism behind it, if you will. It cannot behave randomly, mindlessly creating universes, because there is no way that a truly random process can ever produce the order and the level of complexity that we see around us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ false

 

Well that ought to convincing everyone ...

 

Can you please start trolling me again. I'm missing it. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Haku, can you explain the multiverse theory to me at least

whatever physics caused this universe is making other universes with different values for physical parameters. e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Examples

Only a very small number of universes will have parameters within values which are suitable for life as we know it. This universe is one of those rare cases, but still a statistically random one.

 

 

 

The problem I see with that assertion, is that there is an infinite amount of possible states, but what can exist in reality is but a finite amount of possible states

so you are altering the theory to knock it down? Classic strawman argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whatever physics caused this universe is making other universes with different values for physical parameters. e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Examples

Only a very small number of universes will have parameters within values which are suitable for life as we know it. This universe is one of those rare cases, but still a statistically random one.

 

Like a box full of gas. Holding the same parameters, we have multiple states, ie there are many states for the gas to be (nearly) uniformly distributed. Or far less possible states where all the gas is all on the left of the box?

 

 

So are you saying, that we are really lucky to be alive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Like a box full of gas. Holding the same parameters, we have multiple states, ie there are many states for the gas to be (nearly) uniformly distributed. Or far less possible states where all the gas is all on the left of the box?

 

 

So are you saying, that we are really lucky to be alive?

I guess your example works since basically it is a matter of probability.

 

while this particular universe is special compared to others, in the scope of multiverse this universe was bound to happen. And we would be alive only in this universe. so luck doesn't play in here. that was the whole motivation to start with: to get rid of "special" status of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you are altering the theory to knock it down? Classic strawman argument.

I haven't altered the theory, but simply explaining why I don't agree with the idea of an "infinite" universes or the existence of an "infinite" different states. There may be countless universes, but not infinite.

Infinity is useful only at the level of mathematics and scientific applications (i.e. potential infinity), but an actual infinity has never been proven to exist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a post by the mathematician and science writer Amir D. Aczel, explaining why the multiverse theory doesn't get rid of the fine-tuning mystery, using probability theory.

 

http://www.science20.com/the_greatest_science_mysteries/the_infinite_multiverse_and_monkeys_typing_pi-138060

 

What does it all mean? It means that if you create universes that are countably infinite then, yes, you could say that things will happen (maybe something like you and me will materialize in other universes--maybe), similarly to how a monkey might reproduce Hamlet after a really, really long time. But you can't really say anything about parameters and fine tuning. If you think that you can somehow "create" finely-tuned parameters for your universe, ones that live on the continuum of numbers (such as pi!), then you can forget about it: With probability one (that is, except for on a set of measure zero), this will never happen! Put another way, there is a zero probability that you could ever recreate finely-tuned parameters that would replicate those of our universe. What does this imply about our own universe?

 

He points out that the multiverse solution to the fine-tuning problem is dependent on the Infinite Monkey Theorem, which states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter would eventually type Hamlet, all of Shakespeare's works, and all of the world's published works - if only given infinite time. Likewise, if the multiverse generator is analogous to a monkey typing randomly for an infinite amount of time, creating all possible universes, then a universe like ours was bound to happen.

 

But the problem is that physicists, he argues, do not have a deep understanding of mathematical infinity. And that's why they do not realize that the application of the Infinite Monkey Theorem still says nothing about the probability of fine-tuned parameters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is missing an important point. Which is, finely tuned parameters doesn't need to be fine tuned to the infinite-th significant digit. According to his own example, Monkeys don't need to type out PI to arbitrary digits, they only need to type the PI to some finite number of digits. Which is possible to according to himself. See bold below.

 

 

What does it all mean? It means that if you create universes that are countably infinite then, yes, you could say that things will happen (maybe something like you and me will materialize in other universes--maybe), similarly to how a monkey might reproduce Hamlet after a really, really long time. But you can't really say anything about parameters and fine tuning. If you think that you can somehow "create" finely-tuned parameters for your universe, ones that live on the continuum of numbers (such as pi!), then you can forget about it: With probability one (that is, except for on a set of measure zero), this will never happen!

 

just another strawman argument, although far better than your attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is missing an important point. Which is, finely tuned parameters doesn't need to be fine tuned to the infinite-th significant digit.

 

But you're missing the point that there is an infinite possible parameters, which exist in a continuum of numbers (such as pi), so the probability is still one, which means that it will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But you're missing the point that there is an infinite possible parameters, which exist in a continuum of numbers (such as pi), so the probability is still one, which means that it will never happen.

there is no infinite number of parameters that needs fine tuning. only few hundred at best.

and this guy's point of continuum of numbers is not even that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no infinite number of parameters that needs fine tuning. only few hundred at best.

and this guy's point of continuum of numbers is not even that.

 

How can a few hundred be enough, if the cosmological constant alone needs to be set to 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion?

 

I mean, we're looking at an extreeeeemely small probability - almost vanishingly small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point you probably need to study the cosmology. You seem to say alot of statements based on what you feel is correct without in depth knowledge of the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point you probably need to study the cosmology. You seem to say alot of statements based on what you feel is correct without in depth knowledge of the subject.

 

No he never does that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×