Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Aliens exist due to infinity

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
You are attempting to make a case, I think, that because the universe is infinite, therefore aliens exist. Your entire case rests on the supposition that the universe is infinite. If it is not, your proposition fails. Since we likely cannot know for certain, there is no way to prove or disprove your theory.

Brian Greene, who has written many popular books on physics, in "The Hidden Reality" discusses this issue in terms of Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds" theory. Greene says that if the universe is infinite, then another Earth exists, just like this one, and that so do you, perhaps drinking tea instead of coffee, and thet, indeed, an infintie number of "you" exist. However, these other Earths exist in places in the infinite universe that are beyond our event horizon, so we'll never know whether they exist or not.

Even if the universe is infinite, there would be an infinite number of Earths where there are no aliens, and this may be one of them.




posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
You are attempting to make a case, I think, that because the universe is infinite, therefore aliens exist. Your entire case rests on the supposition that the universe is infinite. If it is not, your proposition fails. Since we likely cannot know for certain, there is no way to prove or disprove your theory.


In fact, the proposition fails either way.

The existence of infinity in no way implies that everything imaginable exists within that infinity (or any other.)

Quick example: The set of all even numbers is infinitely large, yet contains not a single odd number.

Not so quick example: There are more irrational numbers in existence between the number "0" and the number "1" than there are whole numbers on the entire number line.

Harte



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by schuyler
You are attempting to make a case, I think, that because the universe is infinite, therefore aliens exist. Your entire case rests on the supposition that the universe is infinite. If it is not, your proposition fails. Since we likely cannot know for certain, there is no way to prove or disprove your theory.


In fact, the proposition fails either way.

The existence of infinity in no way implies that everything imaginable exists within that infinity (or any other.)


According to Greene, it absolutely does. You'll have to argue with him; I'm no physicist, but his argument is compelling. See The Hidden Reality. Now this guy is a reductionist, like most physicists:


Specify the particle arrangement and you've specified everything. Adhering to this perspective, we conclkude that if the particle arrangements with which we are familiiar were duplicated in another patch--another cosmic horizon--that patch would look and feel like ours in every way. This means that if the universe is infinite in extent, you are not alone in whatever reaction you are now having to this view of reality. There are many perfect copies of you out there in the cosmos, feeling exactly the same way. And there's no way to say which is really you. All versions are physically and hence mentally identical.
p.39



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by schuyler
You are attempting to make a case, I think, that because the universe is infinite, therefore aliens exist. Your entire case rests on the supposition that the universe is infinite. If it is not, your proposition fails. Since we likely cannot know for certain, there is no way to prove or disprove your theory.


In fact, the proposition fails either way.

The existence of infinity in no way implies that everything imaginable exists within that infinity (or any other.)


According to Greene, it absolutely does. You'll have to argue with him; I'm no physicist, but his argument is compelling. See The Hidden Reality. Now this guy is a reductionist, like most physicists:


Specify the particle arrangement and you've specified everything. Adhering to this perspective, we conclkude that if the particle arrangements with which we are familiiar were duplicated in another patch--another cosmic horizon--that patch would look and feel like ours in every way. This means that if the universe is infinite in extent, you are not alone in whatever reaction you are now having to this view of reality. There are many perfect copies of you out there in the cosmos, feeling exactly the same way. And there's no way to say which is really you. All versions are physically and hence mentally identical.
p.39


I hadn't thought this before, but now I see that Greene either doesn't know squat about mathematics, or he doesn't think mathematics applies, as the bolded portion above betrays a sad misunderstanding of what "infinity" means.

Harte



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
I hadn't thought this before, but now I see that Greene either doesn't know squat about mathematics, or he doesn't think mathematics applies, as the bolded portion above betrays a sad misunderstanding of what "infinity" means.


Obviously I typed only a small portion, which may be out of context. If I could have done a cut & paste rather than type it in manually perhaps I could have done a better job. However, Greene, a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate in physics from Oxford and a full professor at Columbia University where he is a professor of physics and mathematics "doesn't know squat about mathematics"


ATS continues to amaze.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Harte
I hadn't thought this before, but now I see that Greene either doesn't know squat about mathematics, or he doesn't think mathematics applies, as the bolded portion above betrays a sad misunderstanding of what "infinity" means.


Obviously I typed only a small portion, which may be out of context. If I could have done a cut & paste rather than type it in manually perhaps I could have done a better job. However, Greene, a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate in physics from Oxford and a full professor at Columbia University where he is a professor of physics and mathematics "doesn't know squat about mathematics"


ATS continues to amaze.


If that's your opinion, then please refute the two concrete examples I gave that prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that infinities need not contain all possibilities.

Harte



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
If Infinity contains all possibilities and that all of them will happen eventually, then Infinity must also contain the Finite.

Hence, if all possibilities are bound to happen, also the finite must occur, leading to a paradox. Further, if the laws of physics forbid something to happen, then it is not a possibility, hence Infinity does not mean that everything "imaginable" will happen, only "the possible" will happen. For instance, even in infinity, FTL travel is impossible.

It is also possible that certain things will not happen, even if they are possible, because it is a possibility that some possible things don't occur.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Harte
I hadn't thought this before, but now I see that Greene either doesn't know squat about mathematics, or he doesn't think mathematics applies, as the bolded portion above betrays a sad misunderstanding of what "infinity" means.


Obviously I typed only a small portion, which may be out of context. If I could have done a cut & paste rather than type it in manually perhaps I could have done a better job. However, Greene, a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate in physics from Oxford and a full professor at Columbia University where he is a professor of physics and mathematics "doesn't know squat about mathematics"


ATS continues to amaze.


If that's your opinion, then please refute the two concrete examples I gave that prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that infinities need not contain all possibilities.


As I told you before, I am not a physicist and do not claim any advanced understanding. Anyone who has taken Physics 101 could probably best me in any argument about physics. But I also don't trust your avowed expertise, especially against Greene, an internationally recognized scholar. I also gave you an out by saying my quote of Greene may be out of context. You've refused to take it, still inisisting on your superior knowledge.

My guess is that if you actually read the book, you would come away with some sort of statement like, "Oh, THAT'S what he's talking about. Okay, then, in that case I have to agree." At least, that's how you would attempt to save face.

Your "concrete examples" don't make any sense to me. It seems to me you are putting limits on infinity. We're not talking just numbers here. Greene is discussing an infinite universe with an even distribution of matter. If that's true, he says, then inevitably there are "other Earths" and other copies of ourselves. He's basically describing Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds" theory which postulates that for every decision, another universe forks off by virtue of that decision. Everett was drummed out of physics for this "preposterous" notion (Well, actually he left in a huff.), but today he is considered seriously.

At the point in the book I quoted Greene is discussing a "flat" Universe without resorting to multiple dimensions. He calls this a "Quilted Multiverse." By that he means that our own cosmic horizon is limited by the speed of light and the inflation of the universe so that each "patch" of this quilt is about 41 billion light years across. It is possible to have interaction within this circle, if only observation, but is impossible to have interactions with anything outside of it, which has developed completely independently without so much as a photon exchanged between patches.

So what you have here is a multiverse without the need for extra dimensions at all. As Greene says (p. 369 in Hidden Reality, cited above)


...Schrodinger wrote down his equations for how quantum waves evolve in 1926. For decades, the equation was viewed as relevant only to the domain of small things: molecules, atoms, and particles. But in 1957 Hugh Everett echoed Einstein's Maxwellian charge of half a century earlier: take the math seriously. Everett argued that Schrodinger's equation should apply to everything because all things material, regardless of size, are made from molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles. And as we've seen, this led Everett to the Many Worlds approach to quantum mechanics and to the Quantum Multiverse. More than fifty years later we still don't know if Everett's approach is right. But by taking the mathematics underlying quantum theory seriously--fully seriously--he may have discovered on the most profound revelations of scientific exploration.


Note: He is referencing "Schrodinger's cat," the mythical beast in a box that is neither alive nor dead until you open ithe box up and take a look.

And here's what the New York Times Book Review had to say about Everett's book:


If extraterrestrials land tomorrow and demand to know what the human mind is capable of accomplishing...hand them a copy of this book.


I write this not for Harte, but for the rest of us here. Harte obviously considers himself above all this, but I have no particular reason to trust his (or her) expertise. If I am going to pay attention to anyone telling me how the universe works, it's not going to be anonymous internet posters jumping to unwarranted conclusions on ATS, which fact alone suggests a lack of expertise. I've read all Greene's books and have grown to trust his insight. Harte: not so much.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
As I told you before, I am not a physicist and do not claim any advanced understanding. Anyone who has taken Physics 101 could probably best me in any argument about physics. But I also don't trust your avowed expertise, especially against Greene, an internationally recognized scholar. I also gave you an out by saying my quote of Greene may be out of context. You've refused to take it, still inisisting on your superior knowledge.

My guess is that if you actually read the book, you would come away with some sort of statement like, "Oh, THAT'S what he's talking about. Okay, then, in that case I have to agree." At least, that's how you would attempt to save face.

Your "concrete examples" don't make any sense to me. It seems to me you are putting limits on infinity. We're not talking just numbers here. Greene is discussing an infinite universe with an even distribution of matter. If that's true, he says, then inevitably there are "other Earths" and other copies of ourselves.

Then he is wrong. That is, he might be right, but the idea that it must be so is wrong.

Infinity is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. I am very well versed in this particular area of mathematics. I'm pretty good in physics too, but I'm mostly self-taught in physics - at least in the more advanced concepts.
My examples put no limit on the first cardinal infinity, which is represented in the example by the set of all even numbers. This infinity is the same infinity that Greene is talking about - often referred to as "countable."

Infinite sets that are countable are isomorphic. Greene's infinite universe then, has exactly the same number of elements as my set of all even numbers. Mathematically, the two sets are identical (isomorphs.)

The set of all even numbers contains no odd numbers, even though odd numbers exist.

How can you explain that? It's infinity, that's how, and that's how infinity works. I admit that it's a simplistic example, but as an analogy, it works.

My second example involves the second cardinal infinity, which is uncountable (no one-to one relationship with the whole numbers.)


Originally posted by schuyler
He's basically describing Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds" theory which postulates that for every decision, another universe forks off by virtue of that decision. Everett was drummed out of physics for this "preposterous" notion (Well, actually he left in a huff.), but today he is considered seriously.

Yes, but the many worlds theory is not what most people think it is.


Originally posted by schuyler
At the point in the book I quoted Greene is discussing a "flat" Universe without resorting to multiple dimensions. He calls this a "Quilted Multiverse." By that he means that our own cosmic horizon is limited by the speed of light and the inflation of the universe so that each "patch" of this quilt is about 41 billion light years across. It is possible to have interaction within this circle, if only observation, but is impossible to have interactions with anything outside of it, which has developed completely independently without so much as a photon exchanged between patches.

The Einstein-Desitter model, or an update of it. Einstein - DeSitter described the visible universe like an onion. The further away from here you look, the faster the receding galaxies appear to be traveling, eventually the ones at the edge of our "onion" are spread very thin (like onion skin or layers) until they appear to be at lightspeed, at which time they are not available to us.

Other, similar descriptions refer to these as "bubbles" and "island universes." AFAIK, the onions came first.


Originally posted by schuyler
I write this not for Harte, but for the rest of us here. Harte obviously considers himself above all this, but I have no particular reason to trust his (or her) expertise.

I'm a fan of Greene's, and I think you're probably right about the context. I don't consider myself to be a physicist (neither does Greene, IIRC - he's a chronicler of science with a degree in science.) On the other hand, the mistake I pointed out is blatant and undeniable. So, I said something.

That doesn't mean I consider myself anything. It simply means that it is a mistake to think that "infinity" implies all possibilities. Would you claim that, if the universe is infinite, then there must be a planet full of living Disney characters?

Harte



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
As I told you before, I am not a physicist and do not claim any advanced understanding. Anyone who has taken Physics 101 could probably best me in any argument about physics. But I also don't trust your avowed expertise, especially against Greene, an internationally recognized scholar. I also gave you an out by saying my quote of Greene may be out of context. You've refused to take it, still inisisting on your superior knowledge.

My guess is that if you actually read the book, you would come away with some sort of statement like, "Oh, THAT'S what he's talking about. Okay, then, in that case I have to agree." At least, that's how you would attempt to save face.

Your "concrete examples" don't make any sense to me. It seems to me you are putting limits on infinity. We're not talking just numbers here. Greene is discussing an infinite universe with an even distribution of matter. If that's true, he says, then inevitably there are "other Earths" and other copies of ourselves.

Then he is wrong. That is, he might be right, but the idea that it must be so is wrong.

Infinity is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. I am very well versed in this particular area of mathematics. I'm pretty good in physics too, but I'm mostly self-taught in physics - at least in the more advanced concepts.
My examples put no limit on the first cardinal infinity, which is represented in the example by the set of all even numbers. This infinity is the same infinity that Greene is talking about - often referred to as "countable."

Infinite sets that are countable are isomorphic. Greene's infinite universe then, has exactly the same number of elements as my set of all even numbers. Mathematically, the two sets are identical (isomorphs.)

The set of all even numbers contains no odd numbers, even though odd numbers exist.

How can you explain that? It's infinity, that's how, and that's how infinity works. I admit that it's a simplistic example, but as an analogy, it works.

My second example involves the second cardinal infinity, which is uncountable (no one-to one relationship with the whole numbers.)


Originally posted by schuyler
He's basically describing Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds" theory which postulates that for every decision, another universe forks off by virtue of that decision. Everett was drummed out of physics for this "preposterous" notion (Well, actually he left in a huff.), but today he is considered seriously.

Yes, but the many worlds theory is not what most people think it is.


Originally posted by schuyler
At the point in the book I quoted Greene is discussing a "flat" Universe without resorting to multiple dimensions. He calls this a "Quilted Multiverse." By that he means that our own cosmic horizon is limited by the speed of light and the inflation of the universe so that each "patch" of this quilt is about 41 billion light years across. It is possible to have interaction within this circle, if only observation, but is impossible to have interactions with anything outside of it, which has developed completely independently without so much as a photon exchanged between patches.

The Einstein-Desitter model, or an update of it. Einstein - DeSitter described the visible universe like an onion. The further away from here you look, the faster the receding galaxies appear to be traveling, eventually the ones at the edge of our "onion" are spread very thin (like onion skin or layers) until they appear to be at lightspeed, at which time they are not available to us.

Other, similar descriptions refer to these as "bubbles" and "island universes." AFAIK, the onions came first.


Originally posted by schuyler
I write this not for Harte, but for the rest of us here. Harte obviously considers himself above all this, but I have no particular reason to trust his (or her) expertise.

I'm a fan of Greene's, and I think you're probably right about the context. I don't consider myself to be a physicist (neither does Greene, IIRC - he's a chronicler of science with a degree in science.) On the other hand, the mistake I pointed out is blatant and undeniable. So, I said something.

That doesn't mean I consider myself anything. It simply means that it is a mistake to think that "infinity" implies all possibilities. Would you claim that, if the universe is infinite, then there must be a planet full of living Disney characters?

Harte



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by nv4711
It is also possible that certain things will not happen, even if they are possible, because it is a possibility that some possible things don't occur.

I have been thinking about this some. Even if there is a probability that life exists somewhere out there, does that mean that there is also a probability that it does not exist?

Another thing I have been thinking...if you play poker there is a definite math that can be applied. The probability of being dealt 2 Aces in TH is exactly 220 : 1. This may or may not happen in 220 hands or may happen more often. over a very large set of hands, the math is exact. We apply this math because we know exactly what cards are in the deck. How can we apply this math to the probability of ET since we only have one sample point, us, in a very large universe?



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



Would you claim that, if the universe is infinite, then there must be a planet full of living Disney characters?


Obviously I was making a joke about that earlier and in a sense it is a Reductio ad absurdum...which you are pointing out....and what this thread becomes if we follow the logic of the OP...absurd.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
You are not owed an answer to absurd questions and they also do not show any kind of scholarship. Attempting to ridicule OP's initial assertion is in itself absurd and completely misses the point. Any place in the Multiverse is still subject to the laws of physics. The concept of infinity does not mean that anything you can think up is reality somewhere. Cartoon characters based on celluloid can't live independently because they are not lifeforms. Making up such an absurd notion does not make the concepts we're talking about here absurd; it makes the very issue of cartoon characters absurd. There are shades of an infinite number of Mom's basements in here somewhere.

The basic concept is simple. It's premis is based on infintity, so if the Universe/Multiverse is not infinite, the concept fails. If it is infinite, the concept does not fail. In an infinite universe there are aliens. There are other earths. We may never be aware of them because they are well beyond our cosmic horizon, but you cannot logically deny that they are there.

Now on the surface that doesn;t do us much good. If aliens exists somewhere beyond our cosmic horizon, then intrinsically we can;t get to them, nor they to us. But we're assuming a "flat" Quilted Multiverse here. What id it isn't? What if there ARE ways to get from one quilt patch to the other without traversing the distance by slogging through the lightyears? Here's where it could get interesting if the idea were not derailed by juvenile derisionary tactics. And I thank the OP for bringing up the idea.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I'm in a basement and my mom live a few house away, so you are close.




Attempting to ridicule OP's initial assertion is in itself absurd and completely misses the point....

...The concept of infinity does not mean that anything you can think up is reality somewhere.


But the OP DOES state this:


Everything you can imagine, your thoughts, ANYTHING, does exists in one way or another. Parallel realities do exists with every outcome possible! billions and billions and billions and billions of these universes exists and many more within All That Is.


cartoon worlds exist...so I IMAGINE I am right. ..and so it is.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Aliens are made of celluloid too. At least, on this planet they are.

What, exactly, are the reasons for, say, an intelligent creature that can talk, resembles a duck and wears no pants, not being within the realm of possibility?

Harte



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Aliens are made of celluloid too. At least, on this planet they are.

What, exactly, are the reasons for, say, an intelligent creature that can talk, resembles a duck and wears no pants, not being within the realm of possibility?

Harte
Exactly. Where would we draw the line and who would be the line drawer? So we can have aliens in the infinte universe but not the real Daffy or Donald?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join