There are at least two models of the universe that make it infinite:
The universe is born through a Big Bang, expands, and then ends in a Big Crunch. The process repeats itself to infinity.
Multi-verses - our universe may or may not regenerate infinitely, but whatever created our universe constantly creates an infinite number of other universes. Some will have properties the same as out own.
Here is my theory:
We know that we have something called consciousness .That consciousness is probably the result of physical attribute that we have. What that is doesn’t really matter for the purpose of this theory.
We know that whatever consciousness we have has a probability greater than zero. Therefore, any theory of infinite universes will generate this consciousness over and over again. In layman’s terms, that reproduction of consciousness is called reincarnation.
So you view, in laymen’s terms, that pregnancy is a reincarnation? I always that reincarnation was a form of rebirth of something. Not something similar, but of the old thing.
Yes. Even if we assume that the exact same assemblage of atoms occurs over and over, there wouldn’t be any connection between them. If I build a sand castle one year, and another identical sand castle next year, we wouldn’t call one the reincarnation of the other.
What counts as a consciousness? If we’re just talking living things you’re much more likely to come back as an alien bacterium than anything remotely sentient.
“Much more likely” in an infinity of universes? Well, the number of alien bacteria that used to be Malacandra would be exceedingly high, but if the possibility of another Mal existing is non-zero, then an infinity of universes guarantees that there will be at least one… and, in fact, an infinite number of them. Do the math.
Buggering about with infinity is not good for the sanity of the individual.
People who really hold this theory take it to extremes, saying that any physically possible universe must come into being.
So there is a universe “out there” exactly like our own, except in which Shakespeare’s sonnets suddenly appear painted on Chinese mountain in the year 1254.
Seriously. I argued with a guy who wrote an article for Scientific American (or, rather, I pointed out in an e-mail a similar example to the above and he confirmed that, yes, the theory does require such absurdities to happen somewhere).
So if we grant that thoughts are “physical” (SentientMeat, yoo hoo!), and and that any given thought is “physically possible,” then there must be a universe “out there” in which you reappear after you die in the full bloom of youth (the Afterlife?), remembering exactly what you remembered here on the “real” Earth, and continuing your existence.
I’m not kidding. Such an absurdity is implied by the hypothesis (it’s hardly a “theory” at this point).
To say, “Well, they’re not the same atoms,” is a dodge, because the same definition of “sameness” does not apply to atoms and information. This is true even on the most concrete, physical level, as you are the same personality (information) that you were 10 years ago (by some definition of sameness or other), yet you are composed of almost totally different atoms.
If, in the “universe of reincarnation” you perceived yourself as being the same you, then you would “be” the same you (same information).
I am offering the above as a rebuttal to the notion of infinite physical universes for the atheist-materialist. I don’t think they’re going to like the implications. I have my own, math/logic-based reasons for disbelieving in infinite universes. If anyone is interested, I’ll go into it, though I’ve been meaning to start my own thread on the topic.
With the (albeit slightly tentative) discovery of dark energy, we know with a very high degree of certainty that this will not occur; gravitation is not nearly strong enough to counteract the expansion of the universe, the rate of which is actually increasing.
It is my understanding (perhaps mistaken) that there are an infinite number of possible permutations of the physical “constants” that underlie the properties of any given universe, and that this category of infinity is in a formal mathematical sense “greater” than the mere “counting” (denumerable) infinity of the number of universes. (I can’t recall the proper mathematical nomenclature, but I’m sure many posters here do). Thus, if this is true (and of course I’m completely open to correction) not even an infinity of universes will guarantee an exact duplicate of the current universe and all its infinitely unpredictable quantum history.
By the way, the great philosopher Nietzsche proposed a purely secular moral system based on his idea of “eternal return”, which in turn is based on the idea of an infinite repitition of this exact universe (and as a trivial aside turned up in the splendid film K-PAX). The idea was that, in deciding how to act and to live our lives, we should consider that our actions and moral decisions would be repeated an infinite number of times, prompting us to choose very carefully. (So carefully that it would probably freeze many people into total catatonia).
First, consciousness is not a thing so much as a process that is bound up in the incredibly complex interactions of genes, develoment, experience, and the environment in general. If what I wrote about the uniqueness of this particular universe is true, then we know that our consciousnesses will never be duplicated.
I am just saying that if each of our consciousness is an illusion caused by some physical substrate then that same illusion will occur again and again with any type of infinite universes. We don’t even really have tp know how consciousness occurs to say that. We just have to know that it has a probability greater than zero.
Consciousness is a process rather than a very specific and delicate physical state. People maintain their consciousness thorugh time even with things like brain injury. The exact composition of atoms doesn’t seem to be all that delicate.
I read a nice little exposition on infinities that went like this:
Picture the Hilbert Hotel, which has an infinite number of rooms each occupied by a guest. To divert themselves, the guests organise themselves into clubs. Each club meets in someone’s room. So you have the “Room 1 Club”, which is just the club that meets in Room 1, the “Room 2 Club” and so on. People don’t have to join any club in particular.
Now there is the “Absentees’ Club”, which is the club for all people who don’t belong to the club that meets in their room. But whose room does the club meet in? If the guest in that room joins the club, then he can’t belong in it, by definition. And if he doesn’t join the club, then he belongs to it, by definition. So with an infinite number of rooms, it’s still possible for there to be demonstrably more clubs than rooms.
Well, as Cantor might say, there’s infinite and then there’s infinite.
If each electron has an infinite number of universes associated with it each as ‘real’ as each other, then the infinities get way out of hand, to the point where we do indeed have notional planets inhabited by purple centaurs or clones of Ian McShane or whatever. But most “multiverse” proposals, either cyclical or simultaneously ‘next to’ our own, don’t go so far (in my limited understanding, anyway). They essentially consider these 3 dimensions of space and one of time (4-D spacetime), which we traditionally call “our universe”, to be one region of a continuum, just as on an infinite (or circular) line, the region between, say, halfway along and two thirds of the way along is also a subset of a larger continuum.
Now, if this is the case, then I suppose that just as you could say that there are an infinite number of points outside that region on the line, you could say that there are “an infinite number of universes outside our own”, which conjures up those centaurs and planetwide shouts of “Cocksucker”. But the problem is that in those universes (strictly, those regions of the universe), gravity is either too weak or too strong for stars to burn long enough to allow self-replicating structures to form anywhere (and it’s clearly hard enough in our region - even when garvity’s strength is “just right” like Goldilocks and the 3 dimensions, the only place it’s been found is this pale blue dot). No such structures, no complex bio-computers whose continual filtering of sensory input, comparison with and sorting into memory, and associated triggers of subtle changes in heart rate/galvanic skin response/gland output (“emotion”) are categorised (by themselves) as something called “consciousness”.
So, I suggest you’re taking your infinities a little too far. There are an infinite number of latitudes on Earth, but that does not mean that you’ll find a replica of yourself north of the North Pole.
On the other hand, there are theories that hold that the various universe’s physical laws are either somehow constrained to be the same or very close to ours, or that they tend to evolve in that direction. For example, if new universes are likely to be generated near black holes, then universes with lots of stars will produce more offspring, and become more common.
I reversed the order of your paragraphs to aid in my response:
I absolutely agree that consciousness is a process, but brain injury does alter consciousness, so I’m not sure how you get the second part.
Why is consciousness an illusion? Just because it’s a process, and not a physical thing it doesn’t have to be an illusion. We don’t really even know what “physical things” are anyway. We just observe somethng, say a brick, and call it physical, when in fact it might just be a process, too, at the fundamental level.
I don’t think this has anything to do with reincarnation.
Reincarnation is the soul coming back into another body. Resurrection is when the same being comes back exactly the same. Giving birth isn’t reincarnation as I understand it. The Hindus believe we are reincarnated based upon our karma, and it decides what form we come back in. So you could come back as a cricket possibly if you were not an advanced enough spirit to handle the complexity of being a human. (Though there is no real relative measure for whether a human or a cricket is more/less advanced)
I’ve always had a semantic nitpick on the definition of the universe.
How can there be multiple “universes”, doesn’t that imply a lack of unity? If we are expanding our perception to accept these alternate universes, then perhaps aren’t they simply just other parts of this universe? I’ve always thought the word multiverse was when you broke the “universe” into subsets, and not a mulitplicity of universes, though I suppose it could go either way, each subset broken apart would be it’s own “universe”.
Every part of the universe is “infinite”. A foot is infinitely large until you impose limits upon it in order to compare it for purposes of measure. How big is a foot? It’s 12 inches. How big is an inch? It’s 8 eighths of an inch or about ___________ this big (if you are viewing this on a 15 inch monitor at 1024x768) the size of the measurement is only relevant when it is being compared to that which is being measured in relation to something else.
The possibility of alternate timelines would allow for infinite splits from the existence in which we live, since eternity is infinitely long as well. If this is so, then wouldn’t that imply that time is at least two dimensional and not one as we so commonly refer to it? Perhaps both Time and Space are three dimensional and infinite in size. Or perhaps expecting that paradigm of dimensionality to apply to time is silly.
I’ve also had a problem with the idea that the universe is expanding. It’s expanding compared to what? How do you know it’s expanding? You are assuming that there is an edge of the universe that is growing larger, but even if there was, it would have to be compared to something else for it to be expanding. It would require something outside of it to expand as well. How do you know we simply are not shrinking? Or it’s not expanding at all, just that the things within it are shifting. Perhaps the Andromeda Galaxy is drifting away from our galaxy at a greater rate than the stars within our galaxy are moving away from each other, thus giving the illusion of expansion. But that would require us to have a basis of measure for the intervening space between us and the Andromeda galaxy. Is that space empty or is it just energy resonating at a different level than what we call “matter”? If we can sail using solar winds, then wouldn’t the solar winds of millions of stars repel each other much in the same way that their mass attracts each other accounting for the galactic drift?
When comparing things to infinity, definitions tend to fall apart.
Yeah. And in almost all cases, you reppear on an athmosphereless asteroid, so you immediatly die again before being “reborn” 100 yards under the surface of some toxic planet, and then…
Err…this concept is supposed to be reassuring how, exactly? You mean there are an infinity of “me” currently popping out of nowhere in the most absurd places, plus some infinity of infinity of people quite like me (but who never posted on the SDMB, for instance) doing the same.
Anyway I just don’t like the concept of an infinity of multiverses, and am generally unwilling to think much about it. Let’s say very roughly that I’m somewhat put off by the idea that anything that I could do (or actually not even could do, like suddenly growing a tail), I’m doing somewhere. All the choices being actually made, there’s actually no choice. Or something like that. I don’t like the concept, anyway.
We know the universe is expanding because of the “Doppler effect”. Think of the EEEWWWWEEEWWWWEWWwwwwww sound an ambulance makes as it gets closer and then finally moves away from you. That change in pitch is the Doppler effect and it works the same with light (the color changes instead of the sound). Astronomers can tell that no matter where we look in the sky, everything is moving away from us. Since we are not in the center of the universe, it is reasonible to assume EVERYTHING is moving away from everything else.
Also, the universe is expanding like a rising loaf of bread. The galaxies aren’t moving trough space (well locally they are), they are moving with space. Kind of like raisins in the bread.
Yes and no. Whatever makes our “consciousness”, there’s no guarantee that it will generate it again. It could generate it once and then generate white noise until the end of eternity.
“Time” fails to have any meaning before the Big Bang or after the Big Crunch. Since matter and time are related and there is no matter in the universe at that point, other than perhaps a singularity of infinite density, there is no meaningful representation of the passage of time in an order moving to entropy sense of the term.
Now I did read one article that offered an argument that given a uniform distribution of matter (which we pretty much have) and there being a finite number of arangements of basic quantum particles in a given area, statistically if you go far enough in any direction, you will encounter a parallel universe / earth / you.
No. Size has a objective physical definition; you can use such things as the planck distance, the amount of wavelengths a particular frequency of light takes to stretch a distance, and so forth.
The universe doesn’t need to have an edge to expand; spacetime itself is stretching. Scientists know the universe is expanding because the farther a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. Solar winds aren’t nearly strong enough to move stars significantly.
.
