Natural numbers doesn’t contain 2.5 because we define it so. Similarly all those CDs are practically the same because it’s made in a factory designed to minimize the variance. Is there a similar strong will or intention in how a multiverse evolves?
It’s an analogy, the specific case doesn’t matter. It demonstrates that infinite does not mean literally everything, it’s possible for some item to be missing from any particular infinite set. In a box of infinite apples you won’t have an orange; in a box of infinite fruit you won’t have a chicken; in an infinite multiverse you by definition won’t have a universe which isn’t part of that multiverse.
I suppose then you’d have been more satisfied with the example of an infinite number of grains of sand, each polished smooth and strewn across an infinite beach.
Or simply an infinite expanse of empty space, each with unique coordinates, yet unable to be differentiated in the absence of any reference.
The point being, infinity itself is a concept we defined a certain way. And no part of that definition mandates variation. People who hear “infinity” and immediately conclude that, in one universe they are a singer, and in another they are an astronaut, and in another still they weren’t born at all, etc., are making an incorrect assumption about the nature of infinity itself.
Framed another way, we have exactly one example of a possible universe. Tell me, what creative force do you believe in which would intervene to ensure other universes play out differently?
I think a creative force is required to ensure other universes play out similarly, not the other way around. Things naturally spread out randomly instead of unified, variances accumulate to cause chaos instead of order. Similar to how the overall entropy always increase.
Do things naturally spread out randomly? Given the same hand reaching into the same lottery box, does some inherent law of the universe guarantee that the number drawn is totally unpredictable?
Given our predicament of having limited information, and limited capacity for understanding, I agree that statistical models are some of the best tools we have, and a very practical way of navigating the world. Many things are effectively random to us, after all. We cannot hope to comprehend every variable at play when all of the numbers cascaded into the bucket.
But how random is it really? The electrical signals firing in your brain are as random and quantum as we could possibly imagine, yet somehow, you experience a single continuous consciousness, waking up as yourself morning after morning. How could that be possible if cause-and-effect were superseded by some principle of inherent chaos? Do you propose this randomness is merely too subtle to detect? In that case, it would be unfalsifiable, leaving us forced to conclude that the hand always draws the same number.
Things can be random and chaotic but if the effects are slow enough then we can still find order in a short period. Evolution is randomness + natural selection but it happens over such a long period we can’t really feel it. Yet we are affected by and products of evolution.
Once again, we model genetic variation as being “random” because we cannot currently predict it accurately, but in truth it’s no different than the lottery. You have quite the task ahead of you if you intend to prove it is necessarily and totally chaotic.
If things are usually “seemingly random” to us it would imply the multiverse would also be “seemingly random” to us. I don’t see the need to prove the chaotic to be truly, whatever that means.
Well, if you don’t care about proving anything, and you simply believe your assumptions are facts, then why are you discussing it with me? Please continue to think whatever you wish, just as I will continue to remain unconvinced by your gut instinct on this topic
Likewise I’m not convinced that I’m the one who needs to provide proofs in this discussion. You already said that “we” model genetic variation as being “random”. And the model is working great. Therefore it is only reasonable to assume things work according to the model unless proved otherwise. A model doesn’t need to be 100% correct to make correct predictions. We still use Newton’s physics model to predict things (flawlessly) even tho it’s not a “truly” correct model.
Is there a similar strong will or intention in how a multiverse evolves?
Well, if we’re talking about the many worlds theorem, then probably yeah, because both worlds came from a common starting point and evolve together. Like, imagine that I flip 100 quantum coins, creating 2^100 (1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376) universes in a multiverse. Every universe will be different, but the vast majority of them will have roughly 50 heads and roughly 50 tails. 7% of them will even have exactly 50 heads. There is one universe where every coin flip lands on heads, but it’s only one universe among nonillions, you could spend your entire life searching universes and never find it. None of the universes are the same, but most of them are so boringly similar that you couldn’t tell them apart. It’s the central limit theorem, that lots of random events trend towards uniformity
nobody really knows, but if I had to guess I’d say that’s probably the way our universe would be, our universe might technically be different from the one next to it, but it would only be different by a single electron on mars that decided to move an atom to the left. There might be a universe somewhere where all of the particles in a lotto wheel quantum tunnel to make the winning number be your number, but it would be outnumbered an infinity to one by universes where that didn’t happen and it looks exactly the same as ours.
That’s true when you only looks at the point of start or point of differ. In each of the universe other random events will keep happening and the accumulate of variances would have chaotic effects.
Natural numbers doesn’t contain 2.5 because we define it so. Similarly all those CDs are practically the same because it’s made in a factory designed to minimize the variance. Is there a similar strong will or intention in how a multiverse evolves?
It’s an analogy, the specific case doesn’t matter. It demonstrates that infinite does not mean literally everything, it’s possible for some item to be missing from any particular infinite set. In a box of infinite apples you won’t have an orange; in a box of infinite fruit you won’t have a chicken; in an infinite multiverse you by definition won’t have a universe which isn’t part of that multiverse.
Ya, but OP was talking about what’s the “most likely” scenario. Which I don’t think the selected analogy demonstrated.
I suppose then you’d have been more satisfied with the example of an infinite number of grains of sand, each polished smooth and strewn across an infinite beach.
Or simply an infinite expanse of empty space, each with unique coordinates, yet unable to be differentiated in the absence of any reference.
The point being, infinity itself is a concept we defined a certain way. And no part of that definition mandates variation. People who hear “infinity” and immediately conclude that, in one universe they are a singer, and in another they are an astronaut, and in another still they weren’t born at all, etc., are making an incorrect assumption about the nature of infinity itself.
Framed another way, we have exactly one example of a possible universe. Tell me, what creative force do you believe in which would intervene to ensure other universes play out differently?
I think a creative force is required to ensure other universes play out similarly, not the other way around. Things naturally spread out randomly instead of unified, variances accumulate to cause chaos instead of order. Similar to how the overall entropy always increase.
We have reached the root of the disagreement.
Do things naturally spread out randomly? Given the same hand reaching into the same lottery box, does some inherent law of the universe guarantee that the number drawn is totally unpredictable?
Given our predicament of having limited information, and limited capacity for understanding, I agree that statistical models are some of the best tools we have, and a very practical way of navigating the world. Many things are effectively random to us, after all. We cannot hope to comprehend every variable at play when all of the numbers cascaded into the bucket.
But how random is it really? The electrical signals firing in your brain are as random and quantum as we could possibly imagine, yet somehow, you experience a single continuous consciousness, waking up as yourself morning after morning. How could that be possible if cause-and-effect were superseded by some principle of inherent chaos? Do you propose this randomness is merely too subtle to detect? In that case, it would be unfalsifiable, leaving us forced to conclude that the hand always draws the same number.
Things can be random and chaotic but if the effects are slow enough then we can still find order in a short period. Evolution is randomness + natural selection but it happens over such a long period we can’t really feel it. Yet we are affected by and products of evolution.
Once again, we model genetic variation as being “random” because we cannot currently predict it accurately, but in truth it’s no different than the lottery. You have quite the task ahead of you if you intend to prove it is necessarily and totally chaotic.
If things are usually “seemingly random” to us it would imply the multiverse would also be “seemingly random” to us. I don’t see the need to prove the chaotic to be truly, whatever that means.
Well, if you don’t care about proving anything, and you simply believe your assumptions are facts, then why are you discussing it with me? Please continue to think whatever you wish, just as I will continue to remain unconvinced by your gut instinct on this topic
Likewise I’m not convinced that I’m the one who needs to provide proofs in this discussion. You already said that “we” model genetic variation as being “random”. And the model is working great. Therefore it is only reasonable to assume things work according to the model unless proved otherwise. A model doesn’t need to be 100% correct to make correct predictions. We still use Newton’s physics model to predict things (flawlessly) even tho it’s not a “truly” correct model.
Well, if we’re talking about the many worlds theorem, then probably yeah, because both worlds came from a common starting point and evolve together. Like, imagine that I flip 100 quantum coins, creating 2^100 (1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376) universes in a multiverse. Every universe will be different, but the vast majority of them will have roughly 50 heads and roughly 50 tails. 7% of them will even have exactly 50 heads. There is one universe where every coin flip lands on heads, but it’s only one universe among nonillions, you could spend your entire life searching universes and never find it. None of the universes are the same, but most of them are so boringly similar that you couldn’t tell them apart. It’s the central limit theorem, that lots of random events trend towards uniformity
nobody really knows, but if I had to guess I’d say that’s probably the way our universe would be, our universe might technically be different from the one next to it, but it would only be different by a single electron on mars that decided to move an atom to the left. There might be a universe somewhere where all of the particles in a lotto wheel quantum tunnel to make the winning number be your number, but it would be outnumbered an infinity to one by universes where that didn’t happen and it looks exactly the same as ours.
That’s true when you only looks at the point of start or point of differ. In each of the universe other random events will keep happening and the accumulate of variances would have chaotic effects.