Infinitely unlikely universe?

[GrowingSmaller]

Naturally speaking universe is either finite and uncaused, and therefore as unlikely as an uncaused event. Zero?

Or, its actually infinite, and whichever part we focus on including this present world, it is merely one in infinity likely (infinitesimal or approaching zero percent likelihood).

Given that people accept fine tuning may indicate a creator, what are the implications of anything and everything being infinitely unlikely? Ok, its derived from naturalist thoughts, but still?

Also, Id say Id have to side with the idea of an infinite universe if I were a naturalist. That is because my life is slipping away, and therefore chances of survival 'approach zero' all the time.

 

[4x4toy]

Time began with physical existence , heavenly bodies will continue to fill space until the End of time when all the physical will be consumed back into the supernatural .. There is no way out, there are two destinies ..

 

[Danielwright2311]

Naturally speaking universe is either finite and uncaused, and therefore as unlikely as an uncaused event. Zero?

Or, its actually infinite, and whichever part we focus on including this present world, it is merely one in infinity likely (infinitesimal or approaching zero percent likelihood).

Given that people accept fine tuning may indicate a creator, what are the implications of anything and everything being infinitely unlikely? Ok, its derived from naturalist thoughts, but still?

Also, Id say Id have to side with the idea of an infinite universe if I were a naturalist. That is because my life is slipping away, and therefore chances of survival 'approach zero' all the time.

The universe is 100 percent infinite.

What would happen if you ever reached the end of space?

You cant, there is no end.

What would be beyond the end? more space, see the problem?

Lets say there was a blocker blocking that space.

There would be more space beyond that.

The beautiful thing is space never ends, ever.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The universe is 100 percent infinite.

What would happen if you ever reached the end of space?

You cant, there is no end.

What would be beyond the end? more space, see the problem?

Lets say there was a blocker blocking that space.

There would be more space beyond that.

The beautiful thing is space never ends, ever.

It's hard to wrap ones head around the "border" of the space-time continuum.
However, considering the ever-increasing speed of the expansion, and considering the idea that it's physically not possible to travel at, or faster then, the speed of light, then we would never be able to reach that "border", since it moves further away faster then objects can physically travel.

If that continues, there will even come a time in the distant future where the distance between stars will grow faster then the speed of light. Meaning that the light of stars won't be able to reach us… since we'ld be "moving away" from those stars faster then the light of those stars can travel in our direction.

As a result, the sky will be black-black. And in that future, assuming all human knowledge was lost, the creatures living then will never be able to know the nature of the universe. For all practical intents and purposes, the solar system will be the only thing that observably exists. All evidence of "other" stars and planets will have disappeared.

 

[4x4toy]

God exists from the everlasting to the everlasting Psalms 90:2 .. Genesis 1:1 pertains to physical creation, the heavens ''space to have a place to put it all and fill it'' plus Earth to ''form it/prepare it as he sees fit and set his timer'' .. Isaiah 40:22 ''stretches'' ''being stretched'' .. Isaiah 44:24 .. Genesis 8:22 There will be dependable stars and constellation to mark feasts and seasons until God calls an End to the natural, and the Sun and Moon are keeping pretty good pace with Earth for the time being .. Revelation 21:22-24 Revelation 22:4-6 .. I've had a dream/vision on this years ago and it remains fresh and life changing today as ever ..

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think there are many types of infinity, mathematically speaking. In an infinity there need not be infinite diversity, there can just be a series like 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ...... ad infinitum.

My point is though..., well look at evolution.

Point one: The analogy for random mutation is with a dice roll. Roll a hundred times, and the chances of getting all sixes or all ones, is very very low.

People say mutation rates are random, but that still leaves space for very unlikely series of random mutations.

Point two: Science has only known about DNA for a short while, and claims mutations are random. But do we know there in the "bell curve" (normal distribution) of dice rolls we are? (see this picture http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LnLmR0nJdMs/S_p1Gs-V6II/AAAAAAAAAII/xdRuoaRxW0w/s1600/GAO+Dice.png )

I think most people think were likely to be in the middle of the range, and that's true - likely. But actually there has not been proven.

So the implication is there is limited knowledge and all kinds of presuppositions being made to account for intelligent life - the presuppositions of Darwin, before gene theory, Gergor Mendel, Watson and Crick, have been scrapped or amended.

Scientists claim to "know" this and that, but theory will advance over the years and this generations know-its will be the next generations partially informed.

It seems with discoveries like epigenetics, the "best scientific explanation" is becoming ever more complex. The "thermodynamic depth" of the human condition (ie how difficult it is for a system to be constructed by a plausible process scientifically) seems to be getting deeper and deeper. Some scientists now claim an infinite universe is the best explanation for the unlikelihood of the world we live in.

Hence the OP.

Question: If there is a bell curve of infinite universes, where are we on that bell curve. In the middle, i.e. average, or at the extremes of the range somewhere?

Isn't that an unknown? but accounting for the depth of complexity of human life could well depend on that knowledge...

OTOH science is adding to the notion of how precious advanced life is, how rare it actually is. Its a sad irony that Darwinism has lead to philosophies of death like social Darwinism, militant anti-theism and eugenics.

Maybe that clash with faith is an artefact of the religious rhetoric of "no God, no morality"? The pious are paying for their labelling of non theism precisely because now non theism is plausible, non theists have been swept into an anti moral trance.

 

[Godistruth1]

Naturally speaking universe is either finite and uncaused, and therefore as unlikely as an uncaused event. Zero?

Or, its actually infinite, and whichever part we focus on including this present world, it is merely one in infinity likely (infinitesimal or approaching zero percent likelihood).

Given that people accept fine tuning may indicate a creator, what are the implications of anything and everything being infinitely unlikely? Ok, its derived from naturalist thoughts, but still?

Also, Id say Id have to side with the idea of an infinite universe if I were a naturalist. That is because my life is slipping away, and therefore chances of survival 'approach zero' all the time.

We know nothing around us that has come into existence without a cause so i believe its more logical to say universe began and was result of a cause

 

[juvenissun]

Naturally speaking universe is either finite and uncaused, and therefore as unlikely as an uncaused event. Zero?

Or, its actually infinite, and whichever part we focus on including this present world, it is merely one in infinity likely (infinitesimal or approaching zero percent likelihood).

Given that people accept fine tuning may indicate a creator, what are the implications of anything and everything being infinitely unlikely? Ok, its derived from naturalist thoughts, but still?

Also, Id say Id have to side with the idea of an infinite universe if I were a naturalist. That is because my life is slipping away, and therefore chances of survival 'approach zero' all the time.

As a Humanist, while your life is slipping away, you should focus yourself upon how to burn your last inch of candle for human's (include your) benefit. Rather than bewildering on this fictional idea.

Of course, it would be a different story if you become a theist, or even a Christian at this time.

What I am saying is that as a humanist, your question is not a meaningful one. The answer will not do you any good.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Naturally speaking universe is either finite and uncaused, and therefore as unlikely as an uncaused event. Zero?

Our understanding of cause and effect is dependent upon how time behaves within the universe. It's not applicable for anything before the Big Bang as a result, nor anything outside the universe. Thus, cause and effect could be out of order.

However, you are falling into a false dichotomy right now. Just because I, as an atheist, do not believe that a deity created the universe doesn't mean I don't think the universe lacked a cause outright. I just view it as an unknown; that is, if the universe does have a cause, we know so little about it that we can't provide much, if any, useful speculation about it.

Or, its actually infinite, and whichever part we focus on including this present world, it is merely one in infinity likely (infinitesimal or approaching zero percent likelihood).

It's pretty clear that the universe is finite, albeit expanding. Also, we know so little about universe development and generation that we can't make any substantial claims about how likely it was for our universe to form. For all we know, all universes (if there are multiple) have the same exact physics as our own and have little to no variety in terms of amount of mass and energy.

Given that people accept fine tuning may indicate a creator, what are the implications of anything and everything being infinitely unlikely? Ok, its derived from naturalist thoughts, but still?

Some people accept fine tuning, but from my perspective, there is no evidence of it to begin with. Most of the universe is entirely inhospitable to life as we know it, and I would never consider something to be designed for a purpose it meets so poorly.

Also, Id say Id have to side with the idea of an infinite universe if I were a naturalist.

-_- not sure why, since we can measure it expanding. An infinite item expanding would be nonsensical.

That is because my life is slipping away, and therefore chances of survival 'approach zero' all the time.

Being worried about death doesn't mean an afterlife exists, let alone that the universe has any of the properties you seem to think it does.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

My point is though..., well look at evolution.

Point one: The analogy for random mutation is with a dice roll. Roll a hundred times, and the chances of getting all sixes or all ones, is very very low.

in fact, any combination you can think of would be equally as low.

People say mutation rates are random, but that still leaves space for very unlikely series of random mutations.

Mutation is random, good, bad and indifferent, but natural selection generally filters out the bad ones. so no, evolution when considered entirely does not leave space as you claim.

Point two: Science has only known about DNA for a short while, and claims mutations are random. But do we know there in the "bell curve" (normal distribution) of dice rolls we are? (see this picture http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LnLmR0nJdMs/S_p1Gs-V6II/AAAAAAAAAII/xdRuoaRxW0w/s1600/GAO+Dice.png )

I think most people think were likely to be in the middle of the range, and that's true - likely. But actually there has not been proven.

slightly higher than middle I imagine, especially since (as discussed), natural selection tends to filter out the mutations towards the bad end of the spectrum.

So the implication is there is limited knowledge and all kinds of presuppositions being made to account for intelligent life - the presuppositions of Darwin, before gene theory, Gergor Mendel, Watson and Crick, have been scrapped or amended

Because we've learned more since then. That's how Science works and that's why you live a better quality of life today than they did then.

Scientists claim to "know" this and that, but theory will advance over the years and this generations know-its will be the next generations partially informed.

Yep, because we've learned more since then. Just a small nit-pick though, we rarely claim 100% certainty on the science, so "know" is likely the wrong term.

It seems with discoveries like epigenetics, the "best scientific explanation" is becoming ever more complex. The "thermodynamic depth" of the human condition (ie how difficult it is for a system to be constructed by a plausible process scientifically) seems to be getting deeper and deeper. Some scientists now claim an infinite universe is the best explanation for the unlikelihood of the world we live in.

Complexity is another word for high fidelity, that we keep learning things is good. That we become more accurate about the knowledge we have is necessary for progress to be made.

Not sure about an infinite universe, the Big Bang model of cosmology is the prevailing model right now... unless you mean "Multiverse"?

Question: If there is a bell curve of infinite universes, where are we on that bell curve. In the middle, i.e. average, or at the extremes of the range somewhere?

Isn't that an unknown?

Yep! We only have one universe to examine and it has life in it, so that's 1 for 1.

but accounting for the depth of complexity of human life could well depend on that knowledge...

How? We've only existed for a few hundred thousand years, a virtual blip on the existence of this universe. In fact, if you could condense the entire history of the Universe into a single earthly calendar year, anatomically modern humans would only exist in the last 8 minutes of December 31, the last day of that calendar. Cosmic Calendar - Wikipedia

the entirety of human recorded history would be within the last 27 seconds of that year, and Christianity would only have existed in the last 5 seconds...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Being worried about death doesn't mean an afterlife exists, let alone that the universe has any of the properties you seem to think it does.

I have this added bonus crazy idea, but I'm totally not qualified to judge it: experiential time exists between dimensions (ie in a "hausdorff dimension" see the page Cynthia Lanius' Fractals Unit: Fractal Dimension ) , its a fractal.

Fractals are common in the natural world, so maybe time too?


Any thoughts on this welcome, I have tried google and it seems to be unexplored territory.

Zeno had a paradox of motion: is something moving where it is or where it isn't? Both extremes seem absurd. I am imagining a fractal solution may help here too, in that movement may be "between dimensions" ... a get out clause of massive proportions but possible at least?

Motion, change and time are all interlinked - maybe fractals are the missing key...

Experiential time, may it be self similar as we zoom though the year in ever recurring yet always changing "now"...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...It's pretty clear that the universe is finite...

This is news to me - do you have a source?

An infinite item expanding would be nonsensical.

Actually, not so; it's one of the strange properties of infinity, along with some infinities being bigger than others. Hilbert's Hotel is the canonical example.

As I understand it, the standard or default assumption (i.e. in the absence of evidence to the contrary) for big bang cosmology is an infinite volume of hot dense stuff (quark-gluon plasma?) that rapidly expanded.

I heard an amusing corollary from Marcus Du Sautoy ('What We Cannot Know'), suggesting that an infinite universe could come from a finite (or infinitely small) beginning. He worked a kind of backwards Zeno's paradox from a universe of radius r, at time t, and showed something along the lines that if r halved as t halved, then r would be 0 at t=0, and this would be true for any radius Unfortunately, it was an audiobook edition, so I can't quote his exact description.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Our understanding of cause and effect is dependent upon how time behaves within the universe. It's not applicable for anything before the Big Bang as a result, nor anything outside the universe. Thus, cause and effect could be out of order.

Like a syntax error on the calculator? I can respect that.