Do you think there's more than one universe?

[Andy Capp]

Continued from above.
Consider Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. The only difference between them is that the angles of a triangle either add up to exactly 180 degrees, or some number higher or lower than that. In each case, you can derive a whole universe full of conclusions about what the rest of that geometry will look like. So then, you observe the real world, and you check if angles total 180 or not. Recently, that was done where the triangle was composed of the earth, and 2 ends of a feature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). To a great deal of precision, the angles came to exactly 180 degrees. Then, everything we derive from Euclidean geometry that is mathematically rigorous will be true in the real world as well.

The same type of thing goes for going from an infinity in a mathematical expression to relating it to the real world.

 

[Andy Capp]

Not only are there probably billions of universes, it may be infinite or so large you might as well call it infinite. In addition to that there is almost no doubt that there are multiple dimensions outside of our own, some estimates say at least 11. That's why I laugh when people mock the possibility of alien lifeforms, even though possibility means a virtual 100% guarantee. There is also the possibility of highly advanced "interdimensional beings" that can pop into our dimension from another one. It sounds fanciful and yet some really smart people seem to think its real. We could conceivably get visitors that are not even from our universe or dimension.

There's nothing wrong with talking about that except for the vanishingly small piece of the universe we occupy lowering the probability of encountering any of them to nearly 0.

 

[MusterX]

I disagree, and the bold part is just plain untrue.

What you're missing is that when infinity becomes useful in math, it can inform us about the real world. The mathematics doesn't just give us answers to questions, but the questions themselves tell us how the world works (in conjunction with empirical observation).

It's not surprising if you are having trouble imagining an infinite universe, but that is exactly what the math tells us about the universe we live in based upon what we have observed. As for an infinite number of universes, it's a nice idea but it's got a long way to go in terms of evidence. In both cases, however, infinity is not nonsense.

Georg Cantor's work with infinity is some wild shit. He pretty much went insane but he proved that not all infinities are the same size. There are different sized "sets" even with infinity.

 

[deltapapha]

Yes... there's more than just one other universe.

do the other ones have intelligent life?

 

[MusterX]

There's nothing wrong with talking about that except for the vanishingly small piece of the universe we occupy lowering the probability of encountering any of them to nearly 0.

The fact that you exist to type these messages in this universe is a possibility of near 0. In fact the probability of even a single amino acid creating itself at random is near 0. The fine tuning problem of the universe places our very existence at near 0.

 

[Andy Capp]

Georg Cantor's work with infinity is some wild shit. He pretty much went insane but he proved that not all infinities are the same size. There are different sized "sets" even with infinity.

Absolutely. It's actually pretty easy to demonstrate. I will leave it to y'all in the thread to decide if you want me to. Might be boring for some.

 

[Andy Capp]

The fact that you exist to type these messages in this universe is a possibility of near 0. In fact the probability of even a single amino acid creating itself at random is near 0. The fine tuning problem of the universe places our very existence at near 0.

I disagree. Experiments indicate that anywhere you happen to have all the right ingredients together, they will form rather spontaneously, and the ingredients are all over, but I get your point. I'm just saying, it bears keeping in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be believed.

 

[rj144]

Georg Cantor's work with infinity is some wild shit. He pretty much went insane but he proved that not all infinities are the same size. There are different sized "sets" even with infinity.

Coming with orders of infinity is actually really straight forward.

 

[Mark Cutting]

You only have 7.6 billion cells? Damn that's low. Are their any brain cells missing?

*there

 

[Fawlty]

To what subatomic systems do you refer that are left to find? I wasn't aware there was any hint of any particle more fundamental than the quark. I am convinced there may be underlying layers to reality that we don't know about yet, but I'm not sure that's the same thing.

Anyway, I agree it seems like there ought to be based upon how our understanding of the universe has developed over time but there really isn't any evidence. I'm hopeful that as better space telescopes come online we will find ways to learn about them experimentally, but it could easily turn up bupkus.

I guess I was fudging it a bit there to try to make the point. I don't expect that when we look more closely there will be 9 "whatevers" orbiting a higgs boson (doesn't even make sense). Expecting underlying layers is a much better way of saying it. I expect the future to fill out the understanding of the subatomic in a way that makes us seem ignorant today. But it is kind of a bad comparison with the possibility of multiple universes, in those terms.

 

[Andy Capp]

Absolutely. It's actually pretty easy to demonstrate. I will leave it to y'all in the thread to decide if you want me to. Might be boring for some.

@MusterX
Changed my mind. Here goes.
Imagine the set of positive integers, 0,1,2,3,... It has an infinite number of terms.
If you take the set of integers, ...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3... also infinite in number, there is a 1-1 correspondence between them. E.g. from the positive integers, assign odd numbers to negative integers and even numbers to positive integers, i.e.
+5,+3,+1,0,+2,+4,+6
-3, -2, -1, 0,+1,+2,+3
These 2 infinities are the same size.
But then look at the real numbers, 0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.3453 etc, there is no 1-1 correspondence with either of the 2 sets above. It's a larger infinity.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

If there is, I don't see that having many philosophical implications for the denizens of this universe.

 

[faustian]

I guess it depends on how you define universe

The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.[21][22][23] According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of spacetime, forms of energy (including electromagnetic radiation and matter), and the physical laws that relate them. The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it even encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic.[24][25][26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Definition

Based on this description as everything that exists, there can only be one universe. Parallel universes wouldn't be universes themselves, but rather parts of the universe

 

[Andy Capp]

I guess I was fudging it a bit there to try to make the point. I don't expect that when we look more closely there will be 9 "whatevers" orbiting a higgs boson (doesn't even make sense). Expecting underlying layers is a much better way of saying it. I expect the future to fill out the understanding of the subatomic in a way that makes us seem ignorant today. But it is kind of a bad comparison with the possibility of multiple universes, in those terms.

Of course, there are huge gaps in our understanding. Contrary to the geometry example I used above, where we only have to observe to know how the universe is shaped, we don't have any theory or math that predicts an answer for the masses of particles, for example. Worse, no one even knows if there is any reason other than hope why there should exist such a theory. It could be just the anthropic principle at work, i.e., the world looks the way it looks because if it looked any different, we would not be here to observe it.

 

[Fawlty]

Not only are there probably billions of universes, it may be infinite or so large you might as well call it infinite. In addition to that there is almost no doubt that there are multiple dimensions outside of our own, some estimates say at least 11. That's why I laugh when people mock the possibility of alien lifeforms, even though possibility means a virtual 100% guarantee. There is also the possibility of highly advanced "interdimensional beings" that can pop into our dimension from another one. It sounds fanciful and yet some really smart people seem to think its real. We could conceivably get visitors that are not even from our universe or dimension.

I have a lot of trouble with the fourth dimension (I refuse to recognize time because I'm closing in on 40) so it seems weird to think about something coming from there. It's possible that we're not seeing the full dimensions of things, like some sort of shadow of our reality that is part of us, unnoticed. I really struggle when people talk about "curled up" dimensions. Can't even begin to ponder it. I'm not sure what sort of being could be consciously aware of its "reality shadow" yet occupying the same space & time that we are.

 

[MusterX]

Coming with orders of infinity is actually really straight forward.

It wasn't really straight forward before Georg Cantor spent his life working on set theory.

 

[MusterX]

@MusterX
Changed my mind. Here goes.
Imagine the set of positive integers, 0,1,2,3,... It has an infinite number of terms.
If you take the set of integers, ...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3... also infinite in number, there is a 1-1 correspondence between them. E.g. from the positive integers, assign odd numbers to negative integers and even numbers to positive integers, i.e.
+5,+3,+1,0,+2,+4,+6
-3, -2, -1, 0,+1,+2,+3
These 2 infinities are the same size.
But then look at the real numbers, 0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.3453 etc, there is no 1-1 correspondence with either of the 2 sets above. It's a larger infinity.

Absolutely. Its still a bit of a mind twister though because infinity = endless so how is one endless larger than another endless but it took Cantor's work with set theory to put it into context. I watched a great documentary called Dangerous Knowledge about 4 mathematicians that pretty much went insane and/or committed suicide. Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing. It was very good, originally aired by the BBC.

This is both parts of the doc for anyone interested. Its a fascinating watch.

 

[MusterX]

I have a lot of trouble with the fourth dimension (I refuse to recognize time because I'm closing in on 40) so it seems weird to think about something coming from there. It's possible that we're not seeing the full dimensions of things, like some sort of shadow of our reality that is part of us, unnoticed. I really struggle when people talk about "curled up" dimensions. Can't even begin to ponder it. I'm not sure what sort of being could be consciously aware of its "reality shadow" yet occupying the same space & time that we are.

A really fucking advanced one lol.

Time itself is quite the mystery. Scientists refer to the "arrow of time", meaning that like an arrow, time only flows in one direction. There are theories as well as evidence that time is a bit of an illusion and that all time, past, present, and future, are all occurring right now, simultaneously.

Here is a neat short video talking about this sort of thing that was aired on PBS. The topic goes much deeper than a 9 minute video but its a good starter. Its really weird to think that time itself is not really understood at all.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

The space of our universe could be infinite without there being other universes and it likely is.

It depends on how you define other universes. But if Space is infinite, then everything that could possibly happen will happen infinite times, meaning there would be another Earth out there exactly like ours. In fact, there would be an infinite number of them.

 

[faustian]

Obviously. Physical processes don't happen just once.

The real question is:

Why does anything exist? If there's a god, why/ how does that god exist? Etc, etc, etc. Why is there something -- not nothing? Why isn't there less/ more of something?

Nothingness cannot logically exist in reality. The concept of 'nothing' is a human abstraction that requires 'something' in order for its invention and existence in our minds because the fundamental idea of 'nothing' derives entirely from its inherent relationship with 'something'. Without 'something', 'nothing' would have no meaning