Someone Wise: Explain the Faults, Please...

Here’s my little heirarchal (sp) theory on the universe, attempted to be simplified (and I believe it to be true).

Please, for the purpose of this thread, humor the bold text to be true:

  1. The Universe is Infinite
    –In all directions, if one were able, he could travel forever and never reach an end.
  2. Everything Potentially Exists in the Universe
    –If an infinite distance could never be crossed, then an infinite universe could never be fully explored, and thus would propose the existence of things unknown for all time.
  3. (here’s the kicker) IF ONE WERE TO TRAVEL ON A LINEAR PATH FOR ALL TIME, HE WOULD EXPERIENCE ALL THAT A PERSON WOULD FIND ON A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL (ABLE TO EXPLORE IN ALL DIRECTIONS) PATH. IT WOULD JUST TAKE MORE TIME TO SEE THE SAME THINGS.
    –In an infinite universe, where everything exists, it’s only a matter of time until something repeats itself in the mix of all that is. And this would happen infinitely. EXAMPLE: If the multi-dimensional explorer finds another Earth exactly like this one, the linear explorer would also find the same thing, but the probability is less, so it would likely be exponentially much further away from this Earth.

Does this not make sense? When I talked to my friend about the end of the universe he would tell me “just because it can’t be proven a negative doesn’t mean it’s a positive”. That’s a good point, but logic, and in terms of the definition, all that is, including the nothing beyond the universe, is part of the universe. Who is to say that nothing isn’t something?

I don’t think the end-of-the-universe debate will ever be solved. Mankind is too impatient, relying on quick-fix answers. I know it’s hard to accept some of these things, but that’s the price you pay for being a primative.

You’re thinking there’s a quick fix for the end-of-the-universe? No wonder you’re confused. The rest of us primatives are going to the Dave Matthews Band.

well what I meant was that man would rather rely on a “sufficient answer” that was borne from science or logic or nature or whatnot, and have an answer, than forever be in the dark. It’s a placebo.

Wow! The Marvel Comics universe, Freshman Philosophy 101 and “The Never Ending Story” together at last! While these ontological tarentellas you are amusing yourself with are mildly entertaining the current view of the universe is that it is both bounded and unbounded which I’ll let Chronos et al explain. The unbounded part does not mean it is truly infinite in range or possibilities, simply that it does not "close’ in a three dimensional sense.

With respect to the nub of your argument ie “Who is to say that nothing isn’t something?” this is simply an ultimately pointless exercise in sophomoric sophistry. You cannot have “something” outside the context of an “all encompassing” boundaried infinity or the infinity does not exist. Saying “nothing” can equal “something” in this scenario is cute but meaningless.

So the point between something and nothing doesn’t even exist. Just what I meant.

If infantile subjects (as you so call this one) are as labeled, then do you say they are not worth a glance? Even the most basic scientific principles are worth reconsidering: Is water really wetter than anything? What’s wrong with this question? It’s only an infantile question to a stubborn listener.

Of course it could be fully explored. It would just take an infinite amount of time.

I believe I already said that.
I think this is neat, if true, because it shows that everything exists in a fraction of the universe (which couldn’t be fractioned anyway, but just ignore that little hole).
ANOTHER POINT

Okay. The first person ever to die is dead. Death is infinitely long. Everyone dies. Everyone’s death is eternal. But the first man’s death will be a longer infinity than anyone else’s.

I know this is a cheap one, since we all know that the infinity of numbers will start at zero and nothing can be done about it. But it’s still weird.

The time between the first man’s death and any other man’s death is finite. Any transfinite number plus any finite number yields the original finite number. Ergo, all people are dead for exactly the same amount of time (assuming a universe with an infinite lifespand, which is probably not a valid assumption).

OK, I think you’re confusing what infinity is. It’s not a number, it’s a concept. There is no end to infinity. There are, however, different levels of infinity. Some infinities are bigger than others.

Where x runs from 1 to infinity, X[sup]2[/sup]>X. So yes, the first man to die will be dead for infinity. So will the last person to die. The first person’s infinity is larger than the second’s infinity and it all works out in the end (which, actually, there isn’t).

But onto your first point, living an infinite amount of time and seeing an infinite amount of space does not guarantee you’ll see everything. I’m here, on Earth, right now. Going a million light years away a billion years from now will not allow you to see me having sex with Kathy Ireland. Much as I wish it to be true, that’s just not within the realm of possibility no matter how long either of us live.

Once I die, I’m dead. Kaput. That’s it. I’m an ex-parrot. No chance of ever seeing me again. The universe will be without me forever. And that, I can only surmise, will be an infinitely sadder universe.

Trivially true, unless you’re suggesting that contradictory entities are included (e.g., unstoppable forces and immovable objects). Note that this doesn’t follow from your claim about an infinite universe being unexplorable, it’s tautological insofar as existence can be predicated of any entity posited.

Not if the infinite universe had only one instance of each thing. Then, everything not on his linear path would go unexplored.

Rather than suggest a linear path, why not start at point x, and have him follow a path that describes the surface of a sphere. Once that notional sphere is covered, he moves a foot further from point x and starts over. That way, with infinite time, he’ll explore all of infinity.

However, this only works for a single, three-dimensional universe. If you’re positing multiple possible worlds, you’re into a non-denumerable space (meaning uncountable, unexplorable). Even with infinite time, an explorer could not traverse the entire thing.

Not true. x[sup]2[/sup] can be mapped to x with the function f(x) = x[sup]2[/sup]. The two sets are the same size.

Fight it out. You need some tempering, is all. That comes from repeated beatings by people who’ve been through theories like this already. Don’t take it personally; you just need some practice sharpening up your ideas.

This is what I said:

IF ONE WERE TO TRAVEL ON A LINEAR PATH FOR ALL TIME

For all time. If one were to travel forever, and continue to experience what there is forever. THEN he would see all that could be seen on either dimension.

Multiple dimensions are just infinity in a different direction, a seemingly unaccessible one. But they still compare directly to the dimension we live in. An explorer could never traverse either universe entirely. I see it as a redundant statement.

And as far as contradictory entities, those too should exist, even something blunt like a Universe-Destroying Gun, but how… I can’t begin to imagine.

First, be careful with your terminology. When you say “dimension”, do you mean a dimension like the first, second, or third, or are you referring to a possible universe?

Second, the above argument makes no sense. In a three dimensional space, there are an infinity of directions unchosen when the explorer is limited to a one linear path in an unbounded space. You have a hidden premise here, that all things exist in this universe, an infinite number of times. If they don’t, then it’s possible to miss and to never see a particular thing.

Explain what you mean by “infinity in a different direction.”

I was thinking about this last night, and I think that I can adapt Cantor’s diagonalization proof to show that an infinite number of infinite universes are a non-denumerable, and so unexplorable set. I’ll try when I get home tonight.

You’ll have to explain how contradictory entities can co-exist. You’re fighting centuries of logic here.

in an infinite universe, all possibilities should occur, there’s nothing logical in thinking that all impossible things must occur too (for example an entirely black object that is also entirely white at the same time, or a square circle)

For more on the perils and joys treating infinity as a number, try Hilbert’s Hotel

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Evno *
**

This is what I said:

IF ONE WERE TO TRAVEL ON A LINEAR PATH FOR ALL TIME

For all time. If one were to travel forever, and continue to experience what there is forever. THEN he would see all that could be seen on either dimension.
I am not a scientist, astronomer, philosopher or carpenter nor do I play any on TV.

My two cents is this:
If the universe is infinite and you travel the universe for all of time you will always be one step (at minimum) behind the universe. Think of it like a mule with the carrot tied to a string. Every step you take leads to anohter step to be taken. Of course this is on only one plotted course. You still have an infinite number of other directions to travel. Unfortunately, you will never have time to go in any other direction if you haven’t finished exporing the first direction. Good luck on your voyage.

I think the answer is the last digit in Pi.

I’m more caught up right now in the “infinite possibilites” idea… I’m thinking that Evno is going in a Leibnizian direction and claiming that, in the infinite universe, there is the possibility of infinite individual notions… so EnderW24… your individual notion contains that you’re NOT going to have sex with Kathy Ireland… however, there could exist an “EnderW24-B” with the exact same individual notion except for the Kathy Ireland clause… what’s the difference between the one and the other? One has sex with Ireland and that’s it… plus I’d imagine one being a bit more satisfied than the other… :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, I have to be honest here, sirs. I’m only 23. I haven’t read enough scientific material to give a seamless argument, but I’ve read some. If others here have more experience with the issues I am proposing (not claiming to have manifested for the first time, I’m not that foolish), then by all means, educate me. That is, after all, the purest reason I say what I say in the first place: absorption of knowledge (by myself).

I may miss alot of points, I may not be familiar with the majority of scientific/mathematic references posted throughout these boards, but I am very much eager to listen, and to understand what it is I don’t know.

But for now, I am simply a curious person who wishes to share what I’ve considered, and have it criticized and torn apart when necessary.

But the one thing I ALWAYS accept and take into consideration is NO ONE CAN BE SURE OF ANYTHING. This is a possible fault that is constantly disregarded, due to a person’s need for a sensible foundation in everything they believe. No one likes to be told they are wrong, and many will often argue against a point they know is true just to avoid the inevitable letdown.

I’ve realized that, being a person whom has less experience with science than some others, I tend to swing towards the “fantasy” likeness and thwart the “logical” one. It’s only because I am unaware. Yet, I’m sure anyone would agree that there are many other people on this planet that hold a lesser fraction of curiosity than someone like myself. I see them all day long, and they are the reason I wish I were around wisened souls all day long.

I appreciate the hyperlinks you people provide when you mention a reference to a scientific theory. I DO click them, and try to understand what they lead to.

So now, I’ll try to solidify some of my seemingly fulla-holes arguments here:

  1. I understand the “mule with a carrot” situation, and I agree. But the point of the linear exploration is not to “finish” it, like NYR407 stated. The purpose is to go on endlessly, experiencing everything you encounter. In a universe with everything possible and impossible existing infinitely, universe would be saturated with existence, an endless cacophany of everything repeated over and over and over again. So, by taking the linear route, being it ENDLESS, one would see everything anyway. It wouldn’t be necessary to go in all directions, or in a spiral-type pattern.

  2. To respond to MANGETOUT, to think that our idea of “logic” must extend beyond what we know of the universe is a silly notion. Logic is only man’s tool for understanding and developing methods for understanding. If I were to visit a star system that our strongest telescopes just can’t see, I would throw “logic” right out the window (assuming I had windows), and let experience take over, with a minimal of educated decisions. This also, I think, helps to explain to HANSEL what I mean by contradictory entities sharing existence together. It’s pretty much a forget-everything-you-know situation, since what we know is only what we can experience, and that might not be what really IS.

  3. HANSEL: I’d rather not touch the whole “dimension” perspective. The dimensions I was speaking of were the ones beyond the 3rd. I was saying that I consider these to be only by-products of this universe, and thus part of this universe. I guess this sounds kinda selfish (YAH! GO UNIVERSE!), but whatever. I really don’t know enough to argue about this so I suppose I will retract what I’ve said. Sorry for running my mouth.

Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that I tend to argue FOR the angles that seem the most exciting. Maybe that means I’m bored.

Or imaginative. If you’re imaginative and want to learn, you’ll fit in well here.

I’m sure that everyone here applauds your open-mindedness, and willingness to debate.

The problem with your arguments so far is that, if you’re unwilling to flesh them out and give them some logical consistency, some theoretical depth, then you’re just spinning castles out of air. You’ll also run into the same problems that many fundamentalists do when arguing fine theological points: since the foundation of your arguements is a wild card, your whole proposal becomes little more than “what I said”.

In other words, don’t casually dismiss logical problems and demands for clarity in your posts. Anyone can make up future scenarios; creating one that’s more than just “wouldn’t it be cool?” takes some hard thinking, though.

Your intuitions are a good place to start, but they won’t take you very far by themselves.

You take a few jumps here. Why does an infinite universe need more than one instance of each of an infinite number of things to fill it up? Why are things repeated endlessly in an infinite?

In a universe unbounded in every direction, following a straight path forever necessarily excludes the greatest portion of that universe from exploration. In fact, as exploration continues, the limit of explored space would approach zero. Unless you can demonstrate that the infinite number of things would occur in that very narrow explored space, your argument is hosed.

Second, how do impossible things exist? Just because we can articulate a paradox doesn’t mean that such things are possible.

Nonsense. Logic isn’t the sum total of current knowledge, it’s a means of synthesizing experience that appears to be fundamental to human cognition. If your experience tells you that something illogical has happened, you alter your theory, not the logic that constructed it.

Let me rephrase the question: are you talking about a single, three dimensional universe here that’s unbounded in every direction? Or a “possible worlds” scheme in which a multiplicity of discrete universes exist, and permit some traffic between them such that we can talk about exploring more than our current universe?