If time and space are infinite, has this been typed before?

Time and space are not infinite. Time began 14 billion years ago. Space exists on the surface of an expanding baloon like blob and there are a set number of particles 10*83 if my memory serves.

Infinite is beyond space time concepts. There is no before or after. The idea is one of is-ness. So no, these comments were not typed out before. They always are.

The multiverse theory posits infinitely many universes and one interpretation is that, as it says in Ecclesiastes, there really is nothing new under the sun. See, for example, books by Brian Greene

I read the book by Brian Greene @LostInParadise recommends.

If the Multiverse interpretation is correct, there are infinite universes, each made up of finite properties.

The mathematics work out under that scenario so as to lead to the conclusion that there are an infinite number of copies of me responding to your question right now, although there is no clear way to measure the distance between my clones and I, nor a good way to agree what time is.

You can only shuffle a deck of 52 cards so many ways before the sequence repeats. A multiverse populated with infinite universes will yield infinite exact copies.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought “You can only shuffle a deck of 52 cards so many ways before the sequence repeats. A multiverse populated with infinite universes will yield infinite exact copies.”

But the multiverse hypothesis isn’t limited to 52, so we can’t claim the sequence would ever repeat. It would be like a deck with infinite cards, and each card in different variety, and each variety shuffled by a different dealer, and each dealer with a different wrist action.

Going with it, the multiverse view, we can’t even claim that any of those would have anything close to the same laws of physics as ours. Thus they may not even have conditions of space and time that we could associate with. Thus, this question may not even be applicable in those universes. Just like asking “What’s North of the North Pole?” is not applicable to our universe.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies 52 cards is used as an example in these theories.

The author recommended above was much clearer, but the thinking is:

There are infinite universes, accept that as a given.

Within that given, the properties of each individual universe, the strength of the electro-weak force, for example, the existence of hydrogen, are variable, but eventually will repeat.

If you were ever to map out the number of variables required for our universe to exist,and then to record their values, the variables and values would always be less than infinite. So in an infinite multiverse, they would repeat multiple times.

You can raise the number of cards to a google-plex, at some point it is a finite number, and an infinite multiverse allows for multiple exact reproductions.

In most universes, there is a no “North Pole” and as you state, the question makes no sense. But when you think about infinite repetition, the rare disappears.

First, to be clear, I don’t accept multiverse theory. But I’m playing along because this type of thinking is fun to ponder.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought “Within that given (infinite universes), the properties of each individual universe, the strength of the electro-weak force, for example, the existence of hydrogen, are variable, but eventually will repeat.”

There would (should) also be infinite variables that we don’t (can’t) account for coming from the perspective of our own limited understanding. It’s not only stranger than we know… but it’s stranger than we can know. Thus, the odds of repeating, IMHO, would essentially be ZERO.

though i do not accept multiverse theory, i do accept multidimensional theory

Keep in mind that one of the precedents I use to support ZERO repeat, is by the laws of our own physics in this universe. Fractals replicate, but they never ever duplicate exactly. Entropy prevents such an event. Exact copying requires… yep, you guessed it… code.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Perhaps I am focused on a parameters. Do you have something that shows the eventual death of repletion I could read? I am fascinated by this stuff,

”...something that shows the eventual death of repletion…”

I’m fascinated by “this stuff” too. So a discussion is preferred to a linky debate.

Here’s what I know, or think I know… Entropy prevents exact copies from being made. Is that what you mean by “repletion”? I want to be sure we’re not confusing the term “repletion” with duplication or replication.

runs to dictionary

Nope, not an aggressive linky challenge, more an invitations to show me things I don’t know.

I define entropy as the slow loss of information approaching heat death within any given universe. I don’t follow that universe copies, with the same exact parameters at inception could not fall victim to the same en-tropic decay and wonder that I am missing something.

The universe has a mechanical efficiency of 1/100,000,000 of a percent. Engineers in the audience will tell you that anytime an engine falls below a 1% mechanical efficiency, it will not oscillate. The universe falls 8 orders of magnitude short of that limit. Therefore, it’s impossible.

Therefor, if the universe cannot be an engine, I don’t see how it could produce anything beyond itself. It seems doomed to constant expansion, dissipating, as an explosion, rather than an engine.

So your term repletion is appropriate in the sense that the same amount of material is always there and a constant in potential energy, never more or less, but it will, and does change form. That implies there is no death of repletion to be had in our universe.

With this fundamental principle intact, replication may occur under the cause/effect of chaos, changing form, replicating form, but always with the same amount of material, never more or less. But here’s where we must find the nuances between the words replication and duplication.

Replication allows for non exact copies to be made, like ice crystals, mountain ranges, waves. They are replications of previous form, but not exact duplications.

In genetics, when the word duplication is used, it refers to a duplication of a segment of a chromosome. And here’s where it gets tricky… that duplication does not refer to an exact copy of the sugar molecule… that cannot happen with entropic forces at play. But instead, that duplication refers to the information that the sugar molecule represents.

It’s like if you wrote, “When Pigs Fly” in the sand with a stick…

And then I wrote, “When Pigs Fly” in the sand with a stick…

Our renderings would be in completely different styles of handwriting… they wouldn’t look exactly the same. But the information they represent is exactly the same. Exact duplication, is only possible when dealing with meaning and code.

Thus, an exact duplicate multiverse from our own could only occur with a codified representation, like making two Toyota Camry’s from the same single set of plans.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies but you can up the tolerances to an absurd degree. Eventually we end up with Toyota Camry’s that are indistinguishable upon examination,

Then we are back to the OP’s question, has someone else typed these words before? I would argue “Yes”, although that person might different in some undetectable way.

Entropy won’t allow for it… This is very difficult to understand. Most don’t grok where I’m coming from.

“Upon examination”, there will always be distinguishable differences discovered. In fact, the tolerances that allow for absurd duplication are the exact same tolerances that allow for closer examination to see the imperfections between the two.

But aside… that’s not the duplication I’m speaking of. What I speak of is exact duplications of meaning. Both Toyota Camry’s represent the same meaning. They are representational duplicates, of one meaning.

Il grande orso marrone and 큰 갈색 곰 are exact representational duplications of the same meaning “The big brown bear.”

It might very well be that infinity is still that-a-way, with respect to time and space. You are the first, but you may not be the last.
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies +1points for using ‘grok’ in a sentence.

Your question makes me think of an interesting proposal I heard recently (forgive me, I don’t remember the source).

The theory suggests that, statistically speaking, not only is our universe so vast that life must exist elsewhere, but furthermore, that the chances of this entire solar system existing somewhere else in space/time, as it is now, including each life-form AND event down to the ‘T’, is actually very good. Basically, It takes the concept of infinite parallel dimensions, and places those vast possibilities within the realm of this universe.

Just a thought. =]

But see @Esedess, that same logic based upon sheer expanse of space and time could be used to support the existence of fantasy objects too, like elves, and unicorns, not just the duplicate us universe. It’s a nice fantasy… but it’s just that… a fantasy.

Life is not a matter of Just add water. There needs to be an information processing system, and that doesn’t have anything to do with how much or little space there is to work with.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies , I suspect that you believe that we are in possession of immortal souls that are not subject to the laws of nature and are completely free. This thread is not the place to argue the point. If, however, one accepts the materialist position then infinite duplication follows from the multiverse hypothesis.

This is a good thought experiment. I’m unsure if what I’m saying is really making sense though. Without mentioning souls or afterlife, I simply wish to adress the falacy of thinking exact duplication is possible.

#1
We can’t even get exact duplication in our own universe. Entropy doesn’t allow for it.

#2
If the argument of infinite space/time/multiverse is used to support duplication of our own universe infinite times, then the same argument can support fantasy objects such as supernateral elves, goblins, ghosts, and every scie fi monster hollywood ever created too. So unless you’re willing to claim that Godzilla really exists somewhere other than the imagination, then I can’t accept that there are infinite copies of my X-wife in the multiverse either.

Perhaps a better question: is there a sequence in pi where this page’s code (as rendered in 1s and 0s) complete with question, is duplicated?

If we live in a Multi Verse yes. If Quantum Mechanics is true yes.

That is an appropriate question @Nullo. I don’t see how the universe could be so inefficient to account for such a thing.

The point is that our Universe only has a finite possible number of states. The infinitude of the number of decimal places in pi is theoretical. Because of the quantum nature of reality, we never need more than a finite number of decimal places. Given a finite number of states and an infinite number of universes, duplication is inevitable.

No two snowflakes alike… no two fingerprints, no two dna strands alike in all of nature through recorded history. Yet we assume duplication is possible, even when no such event has been illustrated. Language is a fickle thing.

Okay, one last time. The total number of possibilities in the Universe is finite. Let me give an analogy. Imagine a deck of not 52 but a billion cards. You are given an identical deck of a billion cards but in a different order and are asked to arrange it the same way as the first one. There would not be enough time to accomplish such a feat. However, if the deck could be randomly shuffled an infinite number of times, there would definitely be a duplication.

Infinity is really big. Eventually, duplications that could not be done deliberately or witnessed during several billion years will eventually occur.

@LostInParadise “Infinity is really big.”

I think that’s where we have a conceptual misunderstanding. I don’t think of infinity as being really big. I think of infinity as a complete set of IS-ness unto itself. I just don’t see it as being described as a size.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that every material mass is duplicated in another multiversal bubble. Let’s assume the exact same particle number and arrangement exists in another physical dimension beyond our own…

… I don’t believe that event would confine thinking creatures of that universe to having the same exact set of thoughts being described with the same exact wording.

Are we coming to the crux of deterministic vs non-deterministic views on reality?

We are coming to the question I mentioned earlier as to whether we have immaterial souls.

How so? I don’t make tbe connection. Not that I don’t believe such a thing. But I’ve intentionally avoided making the suggestion as not to steer the discussion where it didn’t need to go for providinv an answer.

So I must ask, how do gou see this thread having anything to do with souls?

sorry typing on phone

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies No, really? ~

You are dealing in probabilities not certainties.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies , If you take a materialist position then human behavior is deterministic. However, even if we assume non-determinism, there is still only a finite number of things that a person could do, so even if the same state can lead to multiple outcomes, we are still talking about a finite, though extraordinarily large, number of sequences.

Let us go with this and ask another question. Suppose you are correct about a finite non-deterministic immaterial existence in a multiversal theory. If that be so, then what about the Heavens?

What I mean by that, is… Would each universe have its own individual Heaven, and by default, an infinite number of Heavens, and Gods, and thus, duplicate universes would thereby produce duplicate Heavens and Gods too?

I cannot be of any help to you on this. Being an atheist, I do not have to address this question. If I did believe, I would go with one God across multiple universes. There is nothing in the Bible, as far as I know, that says this cannot be the case.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Regarding: “No two snowflakes alike… no two fingerprints, no two dna strands alike in all of nature through recorded history. Yet we assume duplication is possible, even when no such event has been illustrated. Language is a fickle thing.”

You have to realize that you’re expression of those things not being duplicated “in all of nature through recorded history” means nothing when compared to the universe as a whole. If a snow flake has never been duplicated by chance on our planet. That says absolutely nothing about the possibility of it happening when you incorporate the almost infinite number of other worlds that are out there. The universe is so big, it’s vastness is literally inconceivable to a human who could never even see all of his own planet if he wanted/tried to.

@Esedess “That says absolutely nothing about the possibility of it happening when you incorporate the almost infinite number of other worlds that are out there.”

It says everything we can base a statement upon. By your logic, we can also assume that unicorns exist, fairies, elves, dragons, mermaids… just because the universe is soooo big, and just because it hasn’t happened here doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen somewhere else.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies He is saying exactly that. And it is almost certainly true, whether or not you want to dismiss it as absurd.

“Almost certainly true…”

So now, without a shred of empirical evidence that organic life exists anywhere else in the universe besides good ole’ planet earth, we’ve somehow deduced that the existence of elves and mermaids are “almost certainly true”.

Why is the universe still viewed by some as “almost infinite” when science clearly notes the size as finite in the area of 10^80 number of atoms. The universe is actually smaller than a 40 move game of chess. There are 10^120 possible board configurations in a 40 move game of chess.

And as far as getting any organic life to form somewhere out there, we need a genetic code to somehow assemble by chance out of nothing. Smallest known genetic code is 500,000 characters long. Yet Kittle and Kroemer calculate the likelihood of a 100,000 character code as virtually impossible, odds less than 10^183,800. “As Kittel and Kroemer put it, The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event…, and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers.

There literally isn’t enough space or time available in the universe to allow any such event to occur without sentient intervention. How much less likely that mystical creatures would arise?

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought Thank you. That is exactly what I was saying.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You keep going back to that logic of fictional characters as your defense, and quite frankly, it’s nothing more than a logical fallacy known as reductio ad absurdum.
You’re statement that there has never been, and will never be, the same two snowflakes in all of space and time IS more ridiculous a statement than saying elves and mermaids exist somewhere in time and space. But I digress.

The real matter at hand here is one of Schrödinger’s cat philosophy. The fact of the matter is that you, or I, or anyone else does NOT really KNOW (by any means) what the universe holds. The best you could ever say is that, “__________ probably exists” or that “__________ probably doesn’t exist”. To portray your assumptions in such a matter-of-fact tone is just absurd. You’re placing too much importance on your own preferential information, and completely disregarding possibility. I myself understand that as absurd as your perspective may seem to me, it is entirely possible. Until you really know (which means experiencing) one way or the other, one should always consider the most extreme possibilities to either end of the spectrum, as well as everything in between, or neither. You can have bias based on preference to one side or the other (of course we all do in some way), but at least realize that’s all it amounts to. It doesn’t dictate fact.

Let me put it this way… Regardless of the “truth” behind god’s existence, because no one REALLY knows for certain, saying with absolute conviction that there IS or there ISN’T, are ultimately equivalent leaps of faith. And faith is not a fact.

I never spoke of faith. I offered the science we know and trust to run our daily lives with.

In the spirit of parsimony, Occam’s razor is a valid position.

@Esedess “Until you really know (which means experiencing) one way or the other…”

I know I’ve never experienced mermaids or elves. I do not deny the potential for a metaphorical black swan, but until I’ve experienced one, I have no inclination to have faith that they, or mermaids exist anywhere… especially when the science and math project their probability as “zero in any operational sense of an event”.

Call my trust in math and science absurd if you wish. And call your faith in potential mermaids and elves “almost certainly true” if you wish. But you cannot deny that if an infinite multiverse theory allows duplication in the face of entropy, then it also carries along with it the unwitting baggage of mythical creatures, and infinite gods to go with each. Science therefor becomes a parody of the religious fanatic it mocks. Not a good place to be.

@Esedess “You’re placing too much importance on your own preferential information…”

Better that than your imagination.

@Esedess “You’re statement that there has never been, and will never be, the same two snowflakes in all of space and time IS more ridiculous a statement than saying elves and mermaids exist somewhere in time and space.”

Well, sorry… but to my knowledge, the science of chaos won’t allow for two snowflakes to duplicate. I don’t understand why that position is considered absurd. But if you say so.

And I never said mermaids/elves exist… I said that belief in the infinite multiverse theory carries with it the baggage of mythical creatures existence by default of infinite possibilities. Whether they exist or not isn’t my concern here. Personally, I don’t believe in the multiverse theory or mermaids. Elves possibly… but only the type that Terrence McKenna teaches of.

@Esedess “one should always consider the most extreme possibilities to either end of the spectrum…”

I do. I consider the possibilities based upon what we know is actually possible… not potential. The possible has been empirically demonstrated. The potential is imagined. And Occam’s razor is a satisfying principle to base one’s faith reason upon.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
“I never spoke of faith. I offered the science we know and trust to run our daily lives with.”
The fact of faith is still unavoidably inferred, even in science, until you have explored and understood literally everything. Just as an immortal is only immortal until he’s killed, so too is a concept absolute only until an exception arises. Yes 1+1 always equals 2 in the literal sense, however that’s only as far as we know today. You can’t deny that all we know amounts to a miniscule portion of what’s out there; and in that surplus of unexplored possibility there very well may be an instance where even something as seemingly absolute as “1+1=2”, doesn’t hold true. Until every path has been traveled you must always leave the slightest chance for such occurrences, lest risk yourself to unintentionally rejecting a matter of legitimate truth, should it appear in a form not adhering to prior convictions.

As J.B.S. Haldane said, “The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.”

Look, all I’m saying is that being so sure of one perspective just opens you up to narrow mindedness. (lol, contradictory rhetoric) Anyways, I accept your premise that the multiverse theory does indeed carry with it the baggage of possibility in mythical creatures, multiple gods, etc… However you have to also acknowledge that that is a possibility, as well as the possibility that, in reality, the multiverse theory may not be quite so expansive and literal as all that.

The point I was making is not that you’re wrong in your interpretation of concepts and information; but rather that you’re wrong in your inferred or literal exclusion of another’s. “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” (1st of Clarke’s three laws) As it stands, we don’t even have a physical sample of all the habitats on this planet, let alone even 1 sample from all the planets in our own own solar system. To even begin boasting that math (which we’ve still just barely scratched the surface of) explains away even 1 possibility of the universe, is beyond me. “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
-Albert Einstein

Albert is cool. But his own quote diminishes the validity of the statement. If nothing is certain, then neither can be his comments on certainty.

We have different opinions about where to apply the word “faith”. I see faith as belief without evidence. But once evidence is observed/described, that is no longer faith. That is science.

And though I’ve heard the Haldane quote in numerous fashions, I’m not so convinced it is a valid truth statement. Such comments unwittingly request humanity to draw the line at what is knowable. Why search for the Higgs Boson, or infer the existence of dark energies if these and other phenomenon are truly “queerer than we can know”?

I dunno… I don’t know nan.