• vexikron@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    This does not make any sense.

    If there are an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2, all you are doing is naming a set of universes with a constricted naming convention, and the set of universes is still infinite, thus contains any possible universe including an infinite number with an exact replica of you, an infinite number with a slightly different version of you, and an infinite number where you do not exist.

    Just because constrained infinities of certain kinds of numbers can be nested within other infinities of unconstrained, or less constrained infinities of universes does not mean that somehow this has applications to multiverse theory.

    If the given assumption is ‘there are an infinite number of alternate universes’ then the fact that fractions between 1 and 2 are an infinite set has literally no logical ability to mandate that this would somehow constrain the nature of previously established infinity of universes.

    The possibilities of an infinite set of universes would be ultimately constrained by all possible sets of the laws of physics that allow any kind of universe to exist.

    We already know that we live in a universe where humans exist, so, again, there will thus be an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of variations of you exist, and and infinite number where you do not exist.

    EDIT: Here is maybe another way of looking at this.

    There are an infinite number of positive integers.

    There are also an infinite number of even integers, as well as odd integers.

    The set of all odd integers contains half the number of all integers, though both are still infinite.

    The set of all odd integers is constrained by the rule of none of its constituents are cleanly divisible by two.

    But the fact that you can arbitrarily chose a rule to constrain one, larger infinite set into a smaller but still infinite set, does not mean that the larger infinite set does not still exist.

    For this ‘fractional universes’ constraint to make any sense, one would have to demonstrate /why/ the constraint would need to apply to a set of all universes, in a way that is actually meaningfully different than /the constraint not being there/.

    And that is an astoundingly complex matter of physics, not Set Theory 101.

    EDIT 2: My above example from EDIT 1 is not logically valid, so… I played myself on that one, and worse it seems to have confused the whole discussion, so, apologies for that.

    Check out leftzero’s link for a more accurate analogy that I /should/ have used.

    I still believe my original main point still stands though: The fact that there are an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2 in no way means anything whatsoever about possible multiverses.

    Possible and Impossible universes are defined by the laws of physics.

    To override my comment elsewhere in this thread:

    A universe without gravity could conceptually exist, but stars would not form, so we would probably not have any of the atomic elements produced by novae and super novae. Also, no galaxies, no black holes, no planets, no life as we know it, as it seems life requires a planet.

    A universe without the Strong Nuclear Force would just be ‘quark soup’.

    A universe without the Weak Nuclear Force on the other hand has been demonstrated by at least one, perhaps now multiple papers to actually possibly be relatively similar to ours in some ways… very big picture kind of ways.

    A universe without ElectroMagnetism … at bare minimum would have vastly different Chemistry than ours. Organic Chemistry seems largely impossible, so no life as we know it, other than possibly some primitive extremophiles.

    But these are just thought experiments.

    My main point was the whole ‘infinite fractions existing between 1 and 2 has no ramifications on multiverses that could exist’ thing, and I again apologize for an incorrect and misleading example.

      • vexikron@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Ah, you are correct, my example was flawed.

        Thats what /I/ get for not having brushed up on Set Theory 101 in a decade.

        Derp.

    • The point is that people tend to claim the opposite, that an infinite amount of universes means everything and anything is happening in some universe somewhere. Which can’t be true, as a universe where someone creates some device that destroys all universes does not exist (as proven by our own existence).

      Therefore it follows that there must be some constraints, though what those constraints actually are is obviously a very difficult problem.

      The “infinite fractions between 1 and 2 which are not 3” is an example that shows that infinite =/= everything.

      • vexikron@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        I agree with you up to the last sentence.

        I would say it is an analogy that is clumsy at best, and definitely not proof of anything about possible or impossible universes, as the OP presented it.

        • It’s not a proof of possible/impossible universes, it’s a counterexample to the argument that infinite universes must necessarily mean that there’s a universe with anything in it. It disproves that there must be a universe with X in it because there are infinite universes. It does not disprove that there isn’t a universe with X in it.

          It makes no claims that the multiverse must necessarily be constrained, but it does show that you can’t simply assume that the multiverse must be unconstrained. That needs to be proven first. And there are compelling arguments to assume that said constraints do exist (in some way).

    • jasondj@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You made me realize that we always think of infinity as an immensely large number, but it can be an immensely small number (0.0(infinite)1).

      We imagine the vastness of space and forget that people are studying what makes up quarks.

      So thanks for making me realize infinity stretches in both the inifinitely large and the infinitely small. Wasn’t expecting to get a ride on the total perspective vortex from showerthoughts today.

    • CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      I feel like you’ve completely missed the point. I feel like OP is implying that just because there are infinite universes, it doesn’t mean you’re the leader of the world in any of them. Not all things are possible, even with an infinite number of universes.

    • PerilousMare@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      As you said, existence is constrained by laws of physics of this universe and by potentially different laws/constraints in other universes that we can’t possibly know. Because we lack the ability to observe the infinite expanse of universes as a whole, we can’t know what the constraints are (if any) so we can only understand them as infinite possibilities without constraints, but this doesn’t mean that there are not constraints that we’re just incapable of observing, and I feel like this was OPs point with this post. We don’t know what we don’t know.

    • alehc@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      This doesn’t make sense. OP just provided an example of “infinite universes” that even tho they are infinite, they do not contain all possibilities. Because we can’t see all universes at the same time, we cannot know if they have any constraints at all. For instance, all universes might only have me being born in some odd day for some weird reason for all we know.

      • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        OP assumes that the multiverse has constraints. The person you replied to is saying that OP is wrong because we don’t know whether the multiverse has constraints, so OP is wrong.

    • faintwhenfree@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      I was going to post more or less similar rant, but hey thanks for doing it. I second this @OP you hear this? This post just sounds like you don’t understand infinity that well.