Anything Goes, Ontology of Structural Randomness

My thought experiment that I would like you to engage in goes as follows:

The Theory of Anything Goes
Imagine a universe where anything is possible. What would happen?

First of all, what are we saying when we say that anything goes? It means that to begin with there’s a 50/50 potential for something to happen. Therefore, there’s a 50/50 chance that something arises that is more persistent, meaning the likelihood of it ceasing to be is less than 0.5 (on a scale of 0 to 1 where 1 is absolute likelihood). Nonetheless, the potential for existence can never be 1 because that would defy our basic premise that anything goes! So what’s to prevent this universe from becoming an immobile totally stable lump of iron? Well, everything is possible, including randomly degenerative processes. Presumably the most likely of all states in a universe where anything is possible, is a state somewhere between total chaos and absolute stability. Therefore, a universe seemingly chaotic yet beautifully structured in its immense complexity. A universe much like ours. For example, the likelihood of unidirectional time is high since, eventually, iterations will tend more strongly towards one direction or the other. Occasionally, perhaps, time becomes unstable and flutters back and forth. But that would be rare occurrence indeed.

I don’t get it. Why imagine what is already obvious?

[wipes tear from eye] Eris is smiling so big right now I can hardly estimate her joy. :smiley:

But, really, can we really say that everything is equally likely if something is more likely?

No, they’ll tend to cancel each other out. This is what equally likely means, isn’t it?

Since (as you say) it is obvious, it should also be obvious that no intent is required to explain how the Universe came into being. No demiurge, no deity, no Creator per say except Randomness :wink:

But then nothing is possible? Doesn’t this contradict the very premise of our universe? :confused:

A mysterious statement on so many levels. Intent? At any rate, your observation says nothing at all about any “creation” of the universe. The probabilities you spoke of, I hope, are not applicable in your mind to a supernatural metaphysic, are they? How the universe came into being as a probabilistic field must still be answered.

Only to the same extent that it must be answered how God came into being. The probabilistic field is God. A very Leibnitzian god perhaps, but God nonetheless. Either everything remains forever NULL or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, the Universe bootstraps itself into existence.

What’s a probabilistic field?

Random assertions.

The universe. It is a probabilistic field of electromagnetic waves suspended in gravity.

:slight_smile: In the sence that all things are ultimately random? Remember that increasingly structured constructs evolve within our Anything Goes universe. To call these phenomenological structures random assertions would be inaccurate since their complexity can be reduced.

No. Anything is possible, including nothing.

And so, ultimately everything ceases to be. Or “all things equal each other out” And then start all over again, deviating into space, consciousness, unidirectional time. Which then collapses.

But, all things being possible, everything start all over again. And again. And again…

Of course, there is the equal probability that it stays nothing. Everything is possible, right?

For the same reason something with a potential of 1 would contradict the essence of our Anything Goes universe, so would something with an absolute potential of 0.

So even the potential of all potentials being 0 must, in fact, be a potential. But, that is indeed a contradiction. Because if all potentials are 0, the potential of all things being 0 is indeed 0! Conclusion: it never takes place and the Universe again bootstraps itself into existence.

Kind of like this one?


I’m afraid I just don’t get it.

What, my reply? I was just suggesting that the pot sometimes calls the kettle black. No offense to Lib intended, just an observation.

The quote was from this thread:

No, this thread.

ethnicallynot, I don’t understand it either. My background goes about as far as Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene, and some modern phillosophy, but i’m afraid I couldn’t follow your explanation or discern your logic. Could you explain your argument in terms I might understand?

Having had this debate with Mr. ethnicallynot on a few occasions previous. I might intercede with some explanation. What he is trying to assert is that the universe is an undeniable consequence of itself. I happen to agree with erislover in as much as that I do not understand this. But given that ethnicallynot is my sibling and that a few hours of family holiday dinners have been spent on this issue, I would more than appreciate any other views that might make me understand my obviously talented younger brothers assertions…even better: debunk him.

Good luck