Infinity

[Bobby Linton]

Why would an infinite universe result in repetitive outcomes? I don't follow the logic. You always hear people discussing it like infinity would necessitate that this same post is being made somewhere else in some other time as a necessary result of infinite possibilities. You could count to infinity and never run out of new numbers. Why would logic dictate that all things repeat? Just watched Neil deGrasse Tyson trying explain how real numbers and prime numbers are both infinite but there are more prime numbers than real numbers and there's different levels of infinite. I must really be missing something about the concept.

 

[Bobby Linton]

"There are actually many different sizes or levels of infinity; some infinite sets are vastly larger than other infinite sets. The theory of infinite sets was developed in the late nineteenth century by the brilliant mathematician Georg Cantor."

If anyone can dumb that down enough for me to understand, I'm all ears.

 

[ambush80]

I looked this up. Did you get this idea from the Joe Rogan podcast?

I'm certainly no genius and I'm not very good at math so I may not know what I'm talking about, but if I understand what Tyson was saying is that mathematically, there are some sets of infinity that are bigger than others based on what class of number it is. He said that when you map one number against a transcendent number (like Pi) that one "outstrips" the other.

I don't know what he's talking about.

He also said that "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us" which is an idea even me and Joe Rogan seem to be able to grasp. I've always been troubled by Pi. Why do the measurements of circles include Pi? A circle is a finite thing. I can draw one and it seems like it has a finite circumference. Why is it's circumference expressed by a number that never ends?

Math is kooky. I've heard it described as the "Language of the Universe" and "The Language of God". It can be used to describe things that are inconceivable like quantum physics. It can predict physical phenomena that we can measure like electrical currents but it can also predict what's happening in a black hole and during quantum entanglement. It gives us the concept of the Multiverse which Theoretical Physicists like David Deutsch and Max Tegmark insist MUST be the case, yet they are in the minority of physicists. Even though they can express why the Multiverse MUST exist on several chalkboards, and their math is correct, other physicists disagree with them. Does it mean that math is useless because mathematicians and Physicist can't agree on Multiverse Theory? Clearly not. I will accept that math cannot completely describe all phenomena but I will trust it to describe the phenomena that it can describe. I'll still use bullet trajectory charts and dosage recommendations for medicine and load charts for LVL's.

P.S. In the course of looking up your question I ran across some awesome videos on Youtube that I'll share:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This led me to this series of videos of which I'm 4 into so far:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

To the first part of your post I would refer you to Max Tegmark's book Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality and David Deutsch's book The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World . They do a pretty good job of "dumbing down" some really difficult mathematical concepts, though I still don't understand much of what they talk about. You would think that by now there wouldn't be anymore need to study math, but recently I met a guy doing his dissertation on algebra. Imagine that, he's still trying to understand algebra. I asked him how many people in the world understand his work. He said maybe two. The universe is a mystery. I'm glad there are people trying very hard to understand it better.

 

[Bobby Linton]

Listening to Brian Green and Neil Degrass Tyson is always interesting. I did see the infinity segment on The Joe Rogan podcast. I really couldn't comprehend the degrees of infinity. I do believe math is the truest form of science. Fractals and the Fibonacci sequence stuff was mind bending but they could explain it in a way that made sense. Infinity sets, not so much.

 

[Bobby Linton]

The Fibonacci sequence covers the use of imaginary numbers and how they're even used to calculate trajectory so it does have real applications.

 

[ambush80]

Listening to Brian Green and Neil Degrass Tyson is always interesting. I did see the infinity segment on The Joe Rogan podcast. I really couldn't comprehend the degrees of infinity. I do believe math is the truest form of science. Fractals and the Fibonacci sequence stuff was mind bending but they could explain it in a way that made sense. Infinity sets, not so much.

I don't know that guy. I'll look him up. Which episode or video are you talking about?

 

[ambush80]

I don't know that guy. I'll look him up. Which episode or video are you talking about?

Oh! I have seen him on a TED talk.

 

[Bobby Linton]

Brian Greene would have a lot to say on here. He narrated the fabric of the cosmos series. Its wide ranging but it gets into the relationship between biology and mathematics at length. He also makes the point that it is a fallacy to say "look how perfect our environment is for life". We are suited to the environment that is. In a universe of infinite possibilities, we could only be here and thinking on the one where it was possible. (Don't think I am making his point very well) kinda like saying "I think therefore I am" but he relates it to the universe. We live In the multiverse with the correct amount of dark energy to allow us to exist. And he has math on his side.

 

[ambush80]

Brian Greene would have a lot to say on here. He narrated the fabric of the cosmos series. Its wide ranging but it gets into the relationship between biology and mathematics at length. He also makes the point that it is a fallacy to say "look how perfect our environment is for life". We are suited to the environment that is. In a universe of infinite possibilities, we could only be here and thinking on the one where it was possible. (Don't think I am making his point very well) kinda like saying "I think therefore I am" but he relates it to the universe. We live In the multiverse with the correct amount of dark energy to allow us to exist. And he has math on his side.

Yes. That's what he said in the TED talk that I watched

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I still don't quite understand string theory or inflation. I wish I understood the math better. In David Deutsch's book he talks about how hostile our environment is, like it's constantly trying to kill us. He says that the only thing that keeps us from doing anything allowable by the laws of physics is lack of knowledge.

 

[ambush80]

It's cool to see what they thought 10 years ago. "Ten dimensions". That number got bigger.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Bobby Linton]

His ideas on string theory really open my mind to the potential of infinity and not in a grade-school way like what's infinity plus one, but the real mechanics of the universe. I love the point that he makes that in the future the only observable thing in the universe will be our galaxy because of expansion. Really helps me understand that just because we cant see a Multiverse doesn't mean it couldn't be true.

 

[ambush80]

His ideas on string theory really open my mind to the potential of infinity and not in a grade-school way like what's infinity plus one, but the real mechanics of the universe. I love the point that he makes that in the future the only observable thing in the universe will be our galaxy because of expansion. Really helps me understand that just because we cant see a Multiverse doesn't mean it couldn't be true.

That sounds like a long time from now. I was intrigued by the point that he makes about galaxies that have possibly already moved out passed where we'll ever get to see them. This all sounded like it depended on detecting their light or some other radiation. It implied to me that the Universe could be immensely big, passed the 13 billion lightyear distance that we can detect now.

All the descriptions of why the Multiverse could exist are so foreign to me that they're hard for me to internalize. I still have a problem believing entanglement.

 

[Bobby Linton]

Its is cool to contemplate that any galaxy more than say 14 billion light years away would be completely invisible to us. I've heard if we could see the light from every galaxy every point in the night sky would be lit. With an infinite number of stars it was a paradox for a long time why the night sky was dark.

 

[ambush80]

Its is cool to contemplate that any galaxy more than say 14 billion light years away would be completely invisible to us. I've heard if we could see the light from every galaxy every point in the night sky would be lit.

We don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin'.

The ability to know anything is amazing. Consciousness is as interesting and mysterious to me as Cosmology.

 

[Bobby Linton]

Consciousness, ever read the stoned ape theory?

 

[Bobby Linton]

Fungus stimulating our brains to grow and make more connections leading to consciousness. I'm not saying I buy it, but it is interesting. I would think it more likely evolution favoring beneficial traits over time did the trick. The more I learn about fungus though I start to wonder it rules the earth and we just ride on it.

 

[ambush80]

Consciousness, ever read the stoned ape theory?

Yep.

Fungus stimulating our brains to grow and make more connections leading to consciousness. I'm not saying I buy it, but it is interesting. I would think it more likely evolution favoring beneficial traits over time did the trick.

I know one thing for absolute certain; hallucinogenics will produce a type of consciousness that would take years of training to produce or maybe some kind of head trauma, if it's even possible. I knew things about my brain that I would never have discovered without chemicals. I was instantly different. I can't say how that might have affected me if I were a prehistoric homonid but I can say for certain that it would have.

 

[Bobby Linton]

If a fungus can enter the brain of an ant, send it to the correct tree, and use its body for food, what could it do to us?

 

[Israel]

I am not telling you what you don't know Ambush. It is not that the finitude of the circumference of a circle is reliant upon an infinitely progressive number for description...but it does so (in this case) only as it relates to another particular number assigned to the radius. And someone did/does that assigning. Find a way of perfectly figuring half, 1/4, 1/16 or even a 1/9xxxxxx (as long as it's finite) of the length of an arc of a circle...and I'll come to your award ceremony. Till then, the closest we yet have is that Pi thing relative to the radius. We seem to like neat...and tidy fits.

Light really doesn't travel at 186xxx miles per second, it only does so in description as one of an infinite number of other descriptors assignable. If we forgo the measurement of mile, light travels at 1/31622400 of a light year/second. But that measurement gets unwieldy when trying to describe how far the gas station is from my house. It's about 1/5.8817664e+12 (whatever that number is!) of a light year from my door.

Then we get into the whole time thing, anyway. If we monkey with time (like calling two seconds...one second) or whatever other permutation we would care to come up with, then of course, that all changes too, in description. But, regardless, light does what it does. And circles, their circumferences and areas...even relative to the thing we have assigned as radius.

A utility assigned in one place does not easily equate to utility in all. Maybe the framer can get away with a tape that only marks every 16 inches...but the guy designing the reactor...not so much. Like I said, it's not as if you don't know this.

 

[Bobby Linton]

Ok, pi is a good example of my original question. If a number can be classified as a non repeating, non terminating decimal, why would infinity imply every situation must repeat?