What is possible will eventually occur in the multiverse

Depends on your definition of "eventually". It's not required that monkeys on typewriters eventually compose Shakespeare.

Not necessarily, there may not be actual, atoms involved in possible worlds, maybe most of it will be holographic.

What is possible and impossible will not merely occur in the multiverse "eventually." It is actually occurring in the multiverse now, and in the past, and in the future, and not. And all of this, a priori and posteriori. Whether or not "we" comprehend it is irrelevant. It does not matter if All likes or dislikes it when All purposely or unintentionally steps on humans. :smile: It is only important (and not) that we proceed as if it does matter. And even then, it's only important to us if it is.

Reply to James Riley Why so? There's a lot of what but no why, in your post.

Quoting Varde

Why so?

What do you mean by "Why so"? All of my post, or a particular part?

Quoting Varde

There's a lot of what but no why, in your post.

Same question. I did not take the OP as looking for a "what" or a "why." I took it as asking for a "can" to which I replied, in essence, yes and no.

But let me be equally obtuse and just say, because All is, after all, All. That is why. It would be difficult for All to not be happening. And not.

The reason "why" is, there does not have to be a reason why. But there is, and only we can speak to the "why" that we want. We can pick any reason. But the "why" that All wants (or doesn't want) is beyond us. And not.

I think my point here is this: There is that which we cannot or will not comprehend, and until we humble ourselves before that fact, and quit looking at everything from our point of view, we will be frustrated in our search, as we have been. Here we are, you and I, pounding on our keyboards, bound to what we have to work with. It's kind of like that recent conundrum of "we don't know what we don't know." That's what I'm talking about: Something about which I know nothing and, for all practical purposes, never will; at least until I realize it. Sure, in another multiverse, here and now, I know. But All is not perceiving itself through me as far as I can tell. It's perceiving itself through me as far as I can't tell. But if it's All, it's doing it. And not. I'm apparently the "not" part. And not.

"Certum est, quia impossibile"~Tertullian
Quoting A Realist

But can we know all the possible worlds a priori?
This actually seems impossible...

We can know all impossible worlds a priori – (as a rule) they are worlds constituted by contradictions and/or which consist of objects with inconsistent predicates (re: members of the empty set).

Reply to A Realist

If the multiverse is infinite (in terms of quantity of universes) then I could see the case as to why anything would eventually happen, paradoxes aside.

Maybe that's why we are here? That's one answer to the question: we are here because, given enough time, circumstances arise in which intelligent life will arise.

But there's as yet no way to detect other universes.

Reply to jgill Give it time, eventually an infinite number of monkeys will do that (i.e there exists N\in \mathbb{N} s.t for all n>N, n number of monkeys will succeed in the task). :-)

Reply to 180 Proof Can Schrodinger's cat be both dead and alive before I measure?

Doesn't it constitute as a true contradiction?

Quoting A Realist

Can Schrodinger's cat be both dead and alive before I measure?

Can a coin land on both heads or tails before I flip it?

Doesn't it constitute as a true contradiction?

No. "Schrödinger's Cat" is a thought-experiment, not a prediction (or retrodiction).

Quoting Manuel

... we are here because, given enough time, circumstances arise in which intelligent life will arise.

:chin:

Reply to 180 Proof It's not quite the same.
The coin is in a superposition of both before you collapse the wave function of the coin by taking a look at the coin.
If no one measures (gives a look at the coin) then the coin is in both states.
At least that's what a superposition means.

Reply to A Realist "Collapse the wavefunction" is anachronistic. Besides, "both dead and alive" (like numbers 0 and 1) refers to a superposition, or spectrum, of possibilities and not a "contradiction" in so far the possibilities are not also actualities in the same way, in the same place, at the same time. It's a reification fallacy to interpret "the wavefunction", which is statistical, as deterministic and then conclude from this – hasty generalization – that QM produces "true contradictions".

And since time doesn't pass, it's already occurring.

Quoting A Realist

But can we know all the possible worlds a priori?

Let's see. The simplest possible world is an empty set. Then there can be a world that is a set that contains an empty set. And another world that contains two empty sets. Or something more exciting: a world that is a set that contains an empty set and a set that contains two empty sets! The possibilities seem endless...

Quoting 180 Proof

Can a coin land on both heads or tails before I flip it?

If some of the smartest people in the world can imagine a state where the laws of physics break down (singularity?), then I can imagine a state where the principles of logic break down. But there is something I don't like about the way the language of "break down" is used. To use those words lends an unwarranted air of normalcy, superiority, even, to that state where physics and logic apply. I think quite the opposite.

That state where the laws of physics and logic do not apply is the normal, superior state. When that breaks down into it's component parts, we end up stuck in a prison of rules and shit that really don't apply in the "real" world. God chuckles. So funny it is, that he creates it for the humor found in experiencing that part of himself. Talk about self-depreciating humor. "Look how stupid I can be! I created man! :rofl: "

But homo sap, as he is wont to do, has spun it all to make himself the center of the universe, the center of perspective. He is, because he thinks. LOL! He is the measure of all things. LOL! When we imagine anything else, then something must have broken down. LOL! Man, are we chumps, or what?

Reply to James Riley I get it, JR, but as I haven't mentioned anything about a "breakdown" of the laws of physics or principles of logic I don't see how your satirical reply to that quote follows.

Quoting 180 Proof

I get it, JR, but as I haven't mentioned anything about a "breakdown" of the laws of physics or principles of logic I don't see how your satirical reply to that quote follows.

That's just it: It follows whether any of us say anything or not. This whole thread is about what can or cannot be, and all responses have been couched in terms of what we say instead of that which follows.

String theory, or perhaps a fancier word I can't think of that as you said describes "everything that can happen either has or will in an alternate dimension" theory.

Few paradoxes I can think of off the top of my head. The destruction of a universe or "the multiverse" as a whole. The possibility of someone transcending their universe and entering another one (like in the movie The One, pretty good btw more sci-fi than psychological thriller but it's there). Whatever started or "created" the universe, the idea of it "not happening" or happening in a dramatically different way such as a universe that is actually comprised of multiple universes or somehow "outside" the multiverse? These can all be, in my opinion, lazily disproven or made invalid by simply saying "that's not how it works" or these actions and their consequences are not included in "everything that can happen". Who knows. I'm no physicist.

What if, however. And bare with me now. The big bang/singularity actually occurred when one of these paradoxes occurred, due to it rather, thus resulting in a massive explosion that wiped out the old universe and created a new one, thus correcting the paradox. Perhaps in the old universe society advanced to interstellar travel, numerous advanced species interacting on an intergalactic scale, and nearly all scientific questions answered and adapted into devices and technology we can't even fathom. Then! Some scientists tried to push it further, perhaps there was talk of interplanetary war and sought the power to change spacetime and gain some kind of crazy military advantage that was then feasible. They succeeded alright.. they wiped out the enemy. And the entire universe in the process. This occurred approximately 14 billion years ago. We refer to this incident as the big bang or birth of the universe. But perhaps if it was simply it's death and rebirth? This is something we will never know. All I do know is, the more mankind plays God and coddles his science as it were alive, one day we may all pay a very dear price. Perhaps.. in an ironic twist of fate, ignorance is the only true way to save the planet, the galaxy, and entire universe. Who's to say.

I think this thread may be re-inventing a 140-year-old wheel; if you google "the eternal recurrence", or "Henri Poincare", you should find some informative links.

Is God possible?

This is an old and tired fallacy.

Consider the state of the universe to be represented by a real number: say 1.12365...

Given an infinite set of real numbers, there is no guarantee whatsoever that any specific real number is a member of that set. There are infinite numbers to choose from, so for instance the entire set may consist of numbers between 0.6 and 0.61. And moreover, numbers may be duplicated.

Quoting hypericin

Consider the state of the universe to be represented by a real number: say 1.12365...

You think you can represent a universe by a real number, the most non-real number of all (apart from the hyper reals)? A continuum can't be broken up in points.

Reply to Raymond
I'm not staking my claim on whether you can or cannot. (Reals are continuous. Reals comprise of potentially infinite information, so I don't see why you cannot).

Either the universe can be so represented, or it cannot, because the universe is too complex. But if the latter, then my argument is only strengthened. If the op is not true of reals, then it is doubly untrue of the universe.

Quoting hypericin

Either the universe can be so represented, or it cannot, because the universe is too complex. But if the latter, then my argument is only strengthened.

nullum sensum facit

Reply to jgill

Thanks mr. G. :wink:

Quoting jgill

nullum sensum facit

No? It's true that I struggled to express myself here.

Either the state of the universe can be represented by a real or it cannot.

If it can: an infinite set of reals does not exhaust all possible reals. Therefore op is invalid.

If it cannot: universes are presumably too complex to be depicted by a single real. But then, even simpler objects than the universe, reals, do not meet the requirements of the op. Then, it would seem to hold that the universe (representable only by a set of reals?) would also not meet the requirement.

The only way I can see the op is true is if the states of the universe are merely countably infinite, and if they cannot repeat.

Quoting Agent Smith

Is God possible?

Well, describe "God" ...

Quoting 180 Proof

Well, describe "God" ...

The OOO God!

Quoting Agent Smith

The OOO God!

That's not a description, just a label. "Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent" are predicates you must define and describe what each entails in order to discern whether or not they are self-contradictory or inconsistent with one another and therefore whether or not an entity so predicated belongs to any 'possible world'. Btw, as Pascal suggests, no religion is founded on worshipping the tri-Omni "God of the philosophers".

Quoting hypericin

Either the state of the universe can be represented by a real or it cannot.

It would make more sense if you questioned whether the number of objects in the universe was finite or infinite, then countable or uncountable. What does it mean to say the "state of the universe"?

Sorry, makes no sense to me. If you're talking about dynamical systems and their states you must explain all the details.

Quoting 180 Proof

That's not a description, just a label. "Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent" are predicates you must define and describe what each entails in order to discern whether or not they are self-contradictory or inconsistent with one another and therefore is an entity so predicated belongs to any 'possible world'. Btw, as Pascal suggests, no religion is founded on worshipping the tri-Omni "God of the philosophers".

Ok. I thought you'd say that. How about a "God" that's relatively OOO? If that's still not good enough I invite you to describe/define a possible God that would have to exist in a multiverse.

Reply to Agent Smith I'm not making claims one way or another, you (& the OP) are, Smith, and thus bear the burden of making rudimentary sense of them ... For my part, consider Reply to 180 Proof and reread my previous (corrected) post which you've quoted in light of that older post.

Reply to 180 Proof I did posit a reasonable alternative to the absolutely OOO God of philosophy viz. a relatively OOO God, a God-like being who is not omni anything but just powerful, good, knowledgeable enough to be a God in our eyes.

The Multiverse Idea Is Rotting Culture, Sam Kriss.

What looks at first glance like an opening up of possibilities is actually an attack on the imagination.

"There’s nothing wrong with faith, but if it’s not recognized for what it is then monsters start to spawn, not in some distant reality, but right here. No religion is complete without a moral code, but how do you live ethically in our shapeless foam of worlds, invisible to telescopes but throbbing close at the moment of every decision?"

Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems, Philip Ball

The idea that the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement has become an increasingly popular proposed solution to the mysteries of quantum mechanics. But this “many-worlds interpretation” is incoherent, Philip Ball argues in this adapted excerpt from his new book Beyond Weird.

DISCLAIMER: it should be spelled out that 'the multiverse hypothesis' and 'the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics' are very different ideas. However they're often merged in the popular imagination.

Reply to Agent Smith Sorry, too vague to take seriously.

Reply to Wayfarer A "disclaimer" wouldn't be needed if you didn't traffic in middling muddle.

Quoting 180 Proof

Sorry, too vague to take seriously.

What's vague about it? We even have a real-life example: The USA is God on earth, relatively speaking, no? She can do almost anything to anyone if she wants to - having the might to make good any threat she makes, the USA is a veritable God. Surely a category (relatively OOO) that has an example is not so vague as you seem to think.

Reply to Agent Smith You're just playing with words. I asked for straight-forwatd clarity and you're just handwaving bullshit. Nailing jello to the wall ain't my schtick. How about some philosophizing for change, Smith? When you're up for that, I may come back. :yawn:

Quoting 180 Proof

You're just playing with words. I asked for straight-forwatd clarity and you're just handwaving bullshit. Nailing jello to the wall ain't my schtick. How about some philosophizing for change, Smith? When you're up for that, I may come back. :yawn:

I think you just don't want to admit the fact that a relatively OOO God is possible. It's ok, there are topics I'm sensitive about too.

Reply to Agent Smith You're right, Smith, I don't want to "admit" a n y t h i n g UNTIL it can be demonstrated, even if only in principle, either to be the case or not to be the case. Some vague, undefined "OOO God" is just empty words with which you're babytalking rather that saying explicitly what YOU mean. Again Reply to 180 Proof, if you can't DESCRIBE g/G by attributing DEFINITE predicates to g/G, then the modal possibility of g/G is indistinguishable from the modal impossibility of g/G (ergo bullshit ~H. Frankfurt).

... there are topics I'm sensitive about too.

Apparently, bullshit isn't one of them. :sweat:

The philosophy forum:

"A vibrant community of people who rarely agree with each other but who all love philosophy"

Reply to jgill Reply to Raymond
Let me try again.

By the state of the universe, I mean a snapshot of the types, positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe. I'm no physicist, so add onto this whatever else is necessary for a complete and precise description of everything.

Given a description, we can encode it. How? First question is, is this description finite or infinite?

If it is finite, we can encode it as a (very, very, *very* large) integer. Think of binary data as a universal medium of information. All binary data, no matter how large, is just a base 2 integer.

So now, how many possible universes are there? Intuitively, if would seem that U is a possible universe, there is a U' with an extra hydrogen atom here or an extra neutrino there, due to the most minute perturbation in the early universe. So I think we want to say there are infinite possible universes.

So then the set of all possible universes is representable as an infinite array of integers. Now the set of all universes in the multiverse would also be representable as an infinite array of integers. But there is no guarantee whatsoever that one infinite array of integers contains even a single member of another, let alone all of them. So, the op fails here.

Now, if the amount of information in the universe is infinite, then the op is doubly screwed. Then, at best the state can be encoded as an irrational number, and the argument fails for similar reasons.

The only way I can see the op succeeding is if the information content of the universe is finite, there are only a finite number of possible universes, and by some law universes cannot repeat in the multiverse.

Quoting hypericin

If it is finite, we can encode it as a (very, very, *very* large) integer. Think of binary data as a universal medium of information. All binary data, no matter how large, is just a base 2 integer

This type of comment comes up every so often. Alexandre used it some time back. Exactly how do you do this encoding? Is it arbitrary?

Quoting hypericin

So then the set of all possible universes is representable as an infinite array of integers.

Hence, you assert the "number" of possible universes is countable. That's a big "if".

Quoting hypericin

The only way I can see the op succeeding is if the information content of the universe is finite, there are only a finite number of possible universes, and by some law universes cannot repeat in the multiverse

Alexandre made that assumption also.

If there are other universes the principles of probability we have assembled may not be the same. We can say absolutely nothing about the nature of other universes. But they can make for good science fiction. :smile:

Quoting Wayfarer

but how do you live ethically in our shapeless foam of worlds, invisible to telescopes but throbbing close at the moment of every decision

Great one! That many worlds picture... Regarding the MWI, Hugh Everett drank a bottle a day, smoked 3 packets, and ate junk food only. He thought that in one world he was alive for sure... His daughter killed herself to join him...

Reply to Raymond Yes, and left a note in his will that his ashes be put out in the garbage. There's an illuminating bio on scientific american https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-many-worlds-of-hugh-everett/ although since I last referenced it, it's been paywalled, unfortunately. But it notes that the whole idea came up when he and a companion were drinking and thinking up 'ridiculous things about quantum physics'. Yet a lot of people swear by it. One of the first physicists I encountered on philosophy forums would soberly defend it as the only plausible explanation for the wave-function collapse, never mind that it completely rips up the concept of conservation laws.

The question I ask is, if many worlds is the solution, then what is the problem? The issue appears to be that it undermines the 'copenhagen interpretation'. People would rather believe in infinite branching worlds that grapple with the philosophical implications of that. (David Deutsch, reputedly one of the world's smartest people, is so utterly convinced of the Everett interpretation that he thinks anyone who doubts it is a fool.)

Reply to Wayfarer

Yeah, I have to sign in firstly. A pity. In general, articles in SA are very informative. I made a collection once of all kinds of physics and brain articles. I could still read he teamed up with the military and that he was a cold father. Maybe he didn't bother because in some parallel world everything was okay... Luckily his grandson is something else. Eels, that band.
Conservation laws are not broken. It seems so indeed. Doesn’t split the world at every branch? Yes, but all is already present, but in superposition still.
All that QM interpretation stuff has one root: the Copenhagen interpretation. Had it been decided that pilot waves were real, there would have been less confusion and discussing about the wavefunction collapse, or about "the observer and his role". Hidden variables could even serve as that what space is made of. Historia or Fortuna (or MisFortuna...)decided differently.

So I (I guess you too?) am a fool according to Deutsch? Mr. Deutsch, show yourself!

Quoting jgill

Exactly how do you do this encoding? Is it arbitrary?

Of course its arbitrary, its an encoding. The only requirement is that it be reversible.

Quoting jgill

Hence, you assert the "number" of possible universes is countable. That's a big "if".

I am asserting:

*if* the information content of the universe is finite, *then* the number of possible universes is countable.

Quoting jgill

Alexandre made that assumption also.

If there are other universes the principles of probability we have assembled may not be the same.

Exactly what am I assuming? And exactly where am I relying on probability?

Quoting hypericin

if* the information content of the universe is finite, *then* the number of possible universes is countable

Which is nonsense. Information content, like the often quoted Bekenstein information content of the observable universe, i.e, 10exp120, is no indication of its countability.

Quoting Raymond

Which is nonsense.

Raymond has declared it to be nonsense. The matter is settled then, nothing more need be said.

Reply to hypericin

Okay okay... Seems that nonsense is a sensitive expression. Nonsense to me then.

Quoting hypericin

*if* the information content of the universe is finite, *then* the number of possible universes is countable

You are assuming another possible universe is simply an extension of the one we are in, adding features here and there. How could you possibly know what a different universe might be? It might be indescribable from our limited perspective. You seem to be simply shuffling around the features of our universe and applying them to other universes. Its physics, if it had one, might be incomprehensible. Its math could be different, in which case the word "possible" in the OP makes little sense.

It's clear I'm not seeing these many worlds from your perspective. And I'm not restricting myself to solutions of wave collapse in our universe.

Quoting 180 Proof

You're right, Smith, I don't want to "admit" a n y t h i n g UNTIL it can be demonstrated, even if only in principle, either to be the case or not to be the case. Some vague, undefined "OOO God" is just empty words with which you're babytalking rather that saying explicitly what YOU mean. Again ?180 Proof, if you can't DESCRIBE g/G by attributing DEFINITE predicates to g/G, then the modal possibility of g/G is indistinguishable from the modal impossibility of g/G (ergo bullshit ~H. Frankfurt).

What's so vague about the US of A? My example of a relative superpower (USA) is mappable onto a relative OOO God, yes?

Reply to Agent Smith
IDK WTF you're talking about, man. G'nite. :yawn:

Quoting 180 Proof

IDK WTF you're talking about, man. G'nite

:grin: G'nite!

Reply to Agent Smith

Hey agent Smith. What is an OOO God?

Reply to Raymond Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God.

Reply to Agent Smith

Ah yes! Then the USA comes close indeed!

Quoting Raymond

Ah yes! Then the USA comes close indeed!

Close enough!

Quoting jgill

You are assuming another possible universe is simply an extension of the one we are in, adding features here and there.

I don't even know who you are arguing with anymore. Again, where am I assuming this?

I made an argument that the number of possible universes is infinite, that if U is possible then there is U` with an additional particle somewhere. But this in no way limits the scope of possible universes.

Reply to Raymond
Not sensitive, its just amusing that you expect your mere declaration that something is "nonsense" to carry even a scintilla of weight.

Reply to hypericin On the concept of the number of many worlds in quantum theory, David Wallace (2011) has this to say:

To be sure, by choosing a certain discretisation of (phase-)space and time, a discrete branching structure will emerge, but a finer or coarser choice would also give branching.
And there is no “finest” choice of branching structure: as we fine-grain our
decoherent history space, we will eventually reach a point where interference
between branches ceases to be negligible, but there is no precise point where
this occurs. As such, the question “how many branches are there?” does not,
ultimately, make sense.

Not an argument, just an observation somehow related to the OP.

The expression ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ is often trotted out as an example of the degeneration of medieval metaphysics. The actual debate was about whether two incorporeal intelligences could occupy the same space. Many of these debates are at least reminiscent of that.

Quoting hypericin

Not sensitive, its just amusing that you expect your mere declaration that something is "nonsense" to carry even a scintilla of weight.

If the information is a finite, say the maximum of information contained in the observable universe, 10exp120, then there are still is still a continuous collection of possible ways this information evolves. The information within a black hole is finite, and is radiated away in Hawking radiation, but this information can be distributed in a continuous way amongst the particles. So one real number is not enough, not even for a black hole.

Reply to Raymond
I'm not an expert on these matters. That is why I wrote my post as I did. So you say the information content of the universe is not equal to the information required to reproduce it? That makes intuitive sense. But you have to wonder, if two non-identical universes were informationally identical, in what sense their differences would matter. In the scope of the op, I would say they are irrelevant.

But anyway, this is not relevant to the larger point. I was saying, even if the universe could be represented merely by an integer, the op still would not hold . I have zero stake in the interesting but here irrelevant question of whether the universe can actually be represented by an integer, real, or whatnot.