Max Tegmark's infinite universes

[calvert]

If there is an infinity of universes and even in our own level one universe we have an infinite number of copies and near copies, some as close, or closer, than 10^10^29 meters now. Then given that it now is widely believed that time is also infinite does it imply that everything we do has been done before and will repeat again, and again-----. Doesn't this also imply that a billion, or trillion years ago I was sending this same e-mail somewhere? Even witout adding infinite time doesn't the argument still hold? Also, as some histories are probably favored over more exotic histories then it may be very explainable as to why we haven't yet heard from other intelligent life. This may simply be one of many more probable histories for us. In a certain less likely subset of our Earth's history aliens may have played or are playing a large role. Of course there is nothing to prove we are not amoung the less likely subset. For us the result is the same.

 

[drkitten]

If there is an infinity of universes and even in our own level one universe we have an infinite number of copies and near copies, some as close, or closer, than 10^10^29 meters now. Then given that it now is widely believed that time is also infinite does it imply that everything we do has been done before and will repeat again, and again-----.

It does not. Just because something is infinite doesn't mean that it contains all possibilities.

As a simple example, the number 0.353535353535.... has an infinite decimal expansion. The irrational number 0.101001000100001000001... has an infinite decimal expansion that does not repeat. This simple example shows that infinities need not repeat themselves.

But notice that the digit 2 doesn't appear in either number. This shows that even an infinite process need not include all possibilities.

 

[calvert]

Repitition

Yes, Tegmark explains this and it does explain that everything that can happen may not. But, it also implies that what has already happened, or is in a subset of likely outcomes will be more likely to repeat. If I go out of my way to not hit a squirrl on the road and it is my general nature to be kind to animals it is likely that my duplicates wil also try to avoid the squirrl. But I also may be one of the less probable duplicates. Since I did write the question it is likely I will again and/or have before.

Another consideration is that even if space and time are infinite, or even infinite on different levels, any given volume of space can only be filled with a finite packing, and therefore arrangement of particles. So once again the more "favored" arrangements will occur more often and repititions are more likely.

Anyway, what I'm really asking is has all of what we are experiencing most likely occured before, possibly long before our earth was created?

 

[Apathia]

“What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you in your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence-even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!‘”

- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Welcome Calvert!
I knew a "Calvert" whan I was in college who'd pop just that kind of question.
He was reading Nietzsche.

Ah but that Calvert, if this is so, won't have as much as a deja vu that
(s)he's suffering the same old horror over again.
You won't remember that you've been here before.
So will it be you?
Was it you?

 

[drkitten]

Yes, Tegmark explains this and it does explain that everything that can happen may not. But, it also implies that what has already happened, or is in a subset of likely outcomes will be more likely to repeat.

Then he's wrong.

Which isn't surprising, since his infinite universe theory is a nutcase theory that no sensible physicist takes at all seriously.

Anyway, what I'm really asking is has all of what we are experiencing most likely occured before, possibly long before our earth was created?

No way to tell.

My bet is that it almost certainly has not, because there is less experimental evidence for Tegmark's infinite universes than there is for the Fundamentalist Christian God who created the universe in about 4000 BCE.

 

[calvert]

Apathia

Hadn't heard that quote.

Any relation to Will Robinson?

Of course as far as we now know you're right; we will never know. But, who knows what the future holds?

 

[Apathia]

Any relation to Will Robinson?

Anthony Fremont

I notice your old enough to remember the classic Twilight Zone episode my avatar is taken from.

Calvert, was your father in the mortuary or coffin contruction business? And did you at one time have a coffin in which you slept in your college dorm room till the dean ordered you to get rid of it because it was spooking a couple of Korean students?

Then you'd be the Calvert I knew.

 

[calvert]

drkitten

Ouch!!

Can you give me the name of a couple of physicists that believe Tegmark is a nutcase? I assume you also believe David Deutsch has left the planet.

I presume then that you believe our universe is finite. My understanding is that if it is then the minimum size has to be approximately 1000 hubble volumes. Brian Greene and Lisa Randell don't dispute this. And a number of respected physicists, cosmologists are inclined to favor Everett's multiple world view- Tegmark's Level 3 mutiverse, which infer by there nature to produce infinite outcomes.

 

[calvert]

Apathia

Close. Lets just say My travels haven't been on Main Street.

 

[drkitten]

I presume then that you believe our universe is finite.

You presume wrongly.

However, I see no reason why "infinite" implies "periodic."

Especially since, mathematically, almost all infinite structures are aperiodic. (Technically speaking, periodic structures are of measure zero.)

 

[Apathia]

Close. Lets just say My travels haven't been on Main Street.

Could be the same guy, but if not, that's a life you don't have to repeat.
I'v got to run out now.
I might PM you later.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
Which isn't surprising, since his (Tegmark) infinite universe theory is a nutcase theory that no sensible physicist takes at all seriously.



...there is less experimental evidence for Tegmark's infinite universes than there is for the Fundamentalist Christian God who created the universe in about 4000 BCE.

There is little experimental evidence for any current cosmological theory. Please provide evidence that Tegmark's theories are more "nutcase" than any other speculation about the universe.

 

[drkitten]

There is little experimental evidence for any current cosmological theory. Please provide evidence that Tegmark's theories are more "nutcase" than any other speculation about the universe.

We've got the CMB as an empirical demonstration of the Big Bang. Suggestions from distant galaxy readings suggest that the rate of recession is most compatible with an open or flat universe that expands forever. This, in turn, suggests that our universe is infinite in temporal extent but aperiodic.

Which, in turn, suggests that Tegmark's theories of periodicity do not apply within our own observable universe. Since there is no evidence of any other (unobservable) universe, this puts his theory firmly into the "bonkers" category.

 

[Perpetual Student]

We've got the CMB as an empirical demonstration of the Big Bang. Suggestions from distant galaxy readings suggest that the rate of recession is most compatible with an open or flat universe that expands forever.

There is no aspect of Tegmark's theories that is in conflict with the above observations. Try again.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf

 

[drkitten]

There is no aspect of Tegmark's theories that is in conflict with the above observations.

There is also no aspect of the theory that "there is an invisible dragon at the heart of every star that makes them glow, and that the movement of stars is controlled by the direction and speed at which the dragons fly" which is in conflict with the above observations. There is no aspect of the theory that "the universe will, without warning, turn into an enormous bowl of Lucky charms on October 23, 2010" that is in conflict with the above observations.

Nevertheless, no reputable scientist would seriously consider the theory that we only have a little bit more than a year before we all turn into marshmallow bits.

Sensible scientists want something more than simply "this bonkers theory fails to contradict reality" before they accept it. Like, some actual evidence supporting the theory.

 

[Perpetual Student]

drkitten:

Max Tegmark's theories are as far removed from biblical accounts, dragons in stars, marshmallow bits, lucky charms as your comments are from reality.
You may not agree with his highly speculative theories. Fine, but your characterizations are bizarre and demonstrate your own bigotry and narrow mindedness.
He is a respected cosmologist (as you should know). His speculations about the universe are as consistent with observations as are any of a number of speculative theories. You have yet to point to any concrete discrepancy with his theories and observations -- all you have contributed is hot air and bluster.
Now, I am not an avid Tegmark enthusiast, but I do find his speculations interesting and provocative. You should know that his theories do not merit the negative characterizations you make. He is not some kind of pseudo-scientific crackpot.

 

[calvert]

Opps!!! drkitten

drkitten,

You have been on this site for some time. I ask again can you give me the names of a couple of physicists-cosmologists who feel Tegmark is a "Nutcase"?

Someday I hope to have things so clear in my mind.

I won't even refer to your theological comparison.

I'm sure many on this site would love to hear your interpretation.

I have some trouble seeing things clearly at times so be kind--- please.

Calvert

Note: I like your spunk. Strong opinion. My question was a trap as no-one I know of has anything close to a definitive answer. I just wanted opinion. Thanks for yours. But, I didn't expect the "nutcase remark". Ouch! again. Oh and if I did get a 2 (your example above) how would that make a difference? Or maybe not. It just can't happen is not the answer.

 

[drkitten]

He is a respected cosmologist (as you should know).

Roger Penrose is a respected mathematician. He's also dead wrong, as any critical reading of an Emperor's New Mind will show.

His speculations about the universe are as consistent with observations as are any of a number of speculative theories. You have yet to point to any concrete discrepancy with his theories and observations

That's because I don't need to point to any concrete discrepancy between theory and reality to reject it. It suffices for a theory merely to be without any supporting evidence at all. There is no concrete discrepancy between the Lucky Charms theory of the fate of the universe and all cosmological observations yet made.

That does not make the Lucky Charms theory at all likely to be true.

You should know that his theories do not merit the negative characterizations you make.

They do not. But forum rules prevent me from making the sort of negative characterizations they do merit.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Penrose is a poor analogy. Penrose's book about AI is not within his area of expertise which is mathematics. Tegmark is a cosmologist writing about cosmology. So, you offer no scientific support for your hostility for Tegmark's theories; instead you continue your emotional bluster about "lucky charms," which is of little value.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Frankly, I can't follow any of you (I admit that's my own fault). My only question is should I have any qualms about making travel plans for Mardi Gras in New Orleans in 2010.