What are the implications of an infinite large universe?

[AV1611VET]

But surely if anything is possible then with an infinitely large universe, not only will it happen but it is actually happening now.

If the universe stayed the same size, and all matter shrunk to one billionth of its size, would possibilities increase?

 

[Mark Quayle]

But surely if anything is possible then with an infinitely large universe, not only will it happen but it is actually happening now.

How can it be in ANY universe, small or large, that if something is possible, that it is not fact/ that it will not happen? If something does not happen, then it was not possible.

 

[Bradskii]

How can it be in ANY universe, small or large, that if something is possible, that it is not fact/ that it will not happen? If something does not happen, then it was not possible.

If something cannot logically happen, then it cannot happen - whatever the odds. But let's take something that could logically happen that has a 1 in a hundred chance of happening. It wouldn't be a surprise if it did. Now let's increase the odds to one in a million. A slim chance, but roll the dice enough times and it will happen.

Now increase again to one in a billion. Roll the dice a billion times and it almost certainly will happen.

So what happens if I spend the rest of the day adding zeros on to that billion. The chances are now one in a bradskii. Impossible you say. But...if the universe is infinite then that die will be rolled an infinite numer of times (how could it not be?). So the odds don't matter if the game is played an infinite number of times. If it's logically possible then it must happen.

But I can't even convince myself that that is true...

 

[Mark Quayle]

But let's take something that could logically happen that has a 1 in a hundred chance of happening.

But see --there's my point! "Chance", "could happen", etc are OUR minds working, not the facts working. The ONLY thing that can happen in any perceived 'possible', indeed did, does or will happen.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If something cannot logically happen, then it cannot happen - whatever the odds. But let's take something that could logically happen that has a 1 in a hundred chance of happening. It wouldn't be a surprise if it did. Now let's increase the odds to one in a million. A slim chance, but roll the dice enough times and it will happen.

Now increase again to one in a billion. Roll the dice a billion times and it almost certainly will happen.

So what happens if I spend the rest of the day adding zeros on to that billion. The chances are now one in a bradskii. Impossible you say. But...if the universe is infinite then that die will be rolled an infinite numer of times (how could it not be?). So the odds don't matter if the game is played an infinite number of times. If it's logically possible then it must happen.

But I can't even convince myself that that is true...

Yeah, I hear you. But I still want someone to show me how all this runs itself. I still see no reason to think 'possible' can 'actual'-ly be more than one thing. We just don't know what is possible.

We do talk, though.

 

[Bradskii]

But see --there's my point! "Chance", "could happen", etc are OUR minds working, not the facts working. The ONLY thing that can happen in any perceived 'possible', indeed did, does or will happen.

But you're not excluding anything (I think). Which was my point.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But you're not excluding anything (I think). Which was my point.

I don't have the knowledge of which will happen. Whether or not I exclude anything is just intellectual activity. But the one thing that happens excludes all other supposed 'possibles'. (lol, 'which was my point' (I think (?)),(Starting to get lost here).) The whole matter is tongue-in-cheek to me. Yet I can find nothing wrong with it, except in the proposed structure shown in Back To The Future, where every choice made begins a new 'universe' of sorts, deviating from every other possible --you know, the idea that the other choices were also made. (Which I think is absolute bunk, but it is fun!)

 

[Occams Barber]

If the universe stayed the same size, and all matter shrunk to one billionth of its size, would possibilities increase?

Well... we could use your idea to make a really neat movie.

We could call it...(hmmm let me think .).... "Fantastic Voyage"! starring a rejuvenated Raquel Welch.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

Can an infinite universe exist outside of time?

Or is time necessary for the individual parts of an infinite universe to coordinate themselves in a compatible manner?

I'm not sure that time has the same meaning when discussed in the context of an infinite universe as it does when we're talking 'locally' as it were.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm going to confuse myself even more now.

There is obviously something wrong with suggesting that even something with a fantastically low probablity of happening in an infinite universe must happen. Because if it has a low chance of happening then it has a high chance of not happening.

So both eventualities must be correct. It must happen and it also cannot happen with equal certainty.

I'm going for a short nap I think.

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm not sure that time has the same meaning when discussed in the context of an infinite universe as it does when we're talking 'locally' as it were.

I have this gut feeling that an infinity of time /space is a logical impossibility.

Given infinite space there is no possibility of defining a point in space. Given infinite time the concept of a 'point in time' is also impossible.

Points in time or space can only exist relative to other points in time or space. In an infinite system this becomes an impossibility (I think))

OB

 

[Bradskii]

I have this gut feeling that an infinity of time /space is a logical impossibility.

Given infinite space there is no possibility of defining a point in space. Given infinite time the concept of a 'point in time' is also impossible.

Points in time or space can only exist relative to other points in time or space. In an infinite system this becomes an impossibility (I think))

OB

Which prompts a comment about Penrose's conformal cyclic universe.

His proposal suggests that everything will expand and eventually evaporate to effectively nothingness (deep, deep time). And as there is nothing with which to measure distance, size doesn't exist. And nothing happens, so time doesn't exist either. So we're back to a condition he says mirrors the start of the big bang. And off we go again.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not sure that time has the same meaning when discussed in the context of an infinite universe as it does when we're talking 'locally' as it were.

According to General Relativity, time is relative to other things. For example, our frame of time began with the Big Bang, according to some, and even then, it was compact with matter (in a very crass way to put it) and expands as does the universe. If universe only means "frame within which existence has meaning", I'm not sure how that would work. In my opinion, the Universe is infinitely large --each universe within a multiverse also infinitely large-- no matter how fully occupied, or whether simply a big-bang-to-be. Others seem to posit each universe has only definition as its expanding/contracting contents, no edges, and no consideration of meaning outside its outermost influence. Others seem to posit something else that I don't get at all, that the more solid they make it the more ethereal it feels.....

Sorry for wandering off, there. My point (if I have one) is that time is like everything else. Not an absolute. I think I had a reason to say that.

 

[Bradskii]

According to General Relativity, time is relative to other things. For example, our frame of time began with the Big Bang, according to some, and even then, it was compact with matter (in a very crass way to put it) and expands as does the universe. If universe only means "frame within which existence has meaning", I'm not sure how that would work. In my opinion, the Universe is infinitely large --each universe within a multiverse also infinitely large-- no matter how fully occupied, or whether simply a big-bang-to-be. Others seem to posit each universe has only definition as its expanding/contracting contents, no edges, and no consideration of meaning outside its outermost influence. Others seem to posit something else that I don't get at all, that the more solid they make it the more ethereal it feels.....

Sorry for wandering off, there. My point (if I have one) is that time is like everything else. Not an absolute. I think I had a reason to say that.

It could be that time becomes meaningless in a way that suggesting that something will happen or has happened (or indeed is happening) becomes meaningless in itself.

 

[Occams Barber]

Which prompts a comment about Penrose's conformal cyclic universe.

His proposal suggests that everything will expand and eventually evaporate to effectively nothingness (deep, deep time). And as there is nothing with which to measure distance, size doesn't exist. And nothing happens, so time doesn't exist either. So we're back to a condition he says mirrors the start of the big bang. And off we go again.

Yep. I think Mr Penrose and I have just figgered it all out.

Next!

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

It could be that time becomes meaningless in a way that suggesting that something will happen or has happened (or indeed is happening) becomes meaningless in itself.

If time is a quotient of distance, divided by velocity (time = distance/velocity), and distance is infinite, then you have time = ∞/velocity.

 

[Bradskii]

If time is a quotient of distance, divided by velocity (time = distance/velocity), and distance is infinite, then you have time = ∞/velocity.

Distance is distance travelled. You've just shown that travelling an infinite distance takes an infinite time.

'Are we there yet?'

 

[Mark Quayle]

It could be that time becomes meaningless in a way that suggesting that something will happen or has happened (or indeed is happening) becomes meaningless in itself.

I suppose it could be shown mathematically that time is only operative in relation to objects / forces in motion, which would probably look to me like begging the question, but I like it anyway. It seems to me to fit my theology, that time is just a tool for God's use.

 

[SelfSim]

We need the concept of time .. otherwise nothing makes sense. Our brains need the concept of time, in order for us to function as we do.

The idea that time is a 'thing' which floats around someplace which we then grab and attach it to our models of the universe ... is a pure belief that our minds bring into existence.

With this, the concept of time only happens because of us.
It wouldn't happen without us.

 

[SelfSim]

Infinite universes are our hypothetical ..

Hypothetical infinite universes, wouldn't be without us.