Ken Olum - What Would an Infinite Universe Mean?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- Do stars and spaces go on forever? Do the numbers of galaxies, and even of universes, have no end? Is our universe infinite in size and contents? Are there an infinite number of independent universes? Are there different kinds of infinite universes? Can infinities be nested-infinities of infinities? Here’s how infinity transforms an astonishing reality.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on if the universe will end: closertotruth....
Ken Olum is a Research Professor in the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, where he has worked since 1997. He studies gravitational waves, cosmic strings, negative energies in quantum field theory, energy conditions and exotic phenomena in general relativity, and anthropic reasoning and other issues in cosmology. He is a member of the NANOGrav collaboration, which searches for low-frequency gravitational waves via precision timing of pulsars.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
An infinite universe with an infinite number of possibilities means that there are Star Wars sequels that actually _don't_ suck.
Perhaps there are an infinite number of Star Wars sequels.
@@tonyedgecombe6631 Under this theory, it is not "perhaps."
🤣🤣🤣
even written by me!
There would also be a version of the universe were you enthusiastically like the current sequels🍿
I never get tired of these videos. Even if the answers are never really at hand I love talking about the questions.
Well this certainly cleared everything up.
yeah 🤪
@@petepeter1857 yes, in short, the universe is not infinite.
@@dongshengdi773 ...or is it...?
Infinity x Infinity is redundant
Yeah, this didn't actually amount to a damned thing really did it?
I think of space as nothingness. Like a backdrop against which every thing exists. Nothingness has no boundaries, no beginning, no end. But everything that does, happens within "space".
I define the universe as all the phenomena (matter, particles and energy) within space. I think of the universe as time itself. Like an unfolding that never stops, always being created and destroyed simultaneously. Never creating the same thing exactly twice, because one of the parameters of some thing that is created is the moment or span in time that it exists. Since time marches forward forever, it can never be the same moment ever again. So therefore, I think the universe is infinite and finite simultaneously. Infinite because the unfolding never stops, but finite because the creation has a beginning and an end. I think I just hurt my brain.
@Max Christian Epic. That last sentence kind of wrecked me; I haven't thought of in that regard. I'll be thinking of that. But the fact I AM is the only thing I'm sure of. Thanks.
Space may be the one and only absolute that exists.
Thank you for this segment. Please, do more discussions on infinity. On the subject of physical infinity being real, my hunch is yes. I really appreciate Ken's insight.
It has to be infinite in many ways, like for ex. infinite in space, materia was never born, but is just in constant movement. Nothing comes out from nothing and BB was a black hole that exploded imo. The concept of scientific theory is somewhat flawed, as any theory, that can not be verified, can not be a scientific theory no matter how much it makes sense. One can never observe reality, thus the concept of infinity is poorly understood amongst the people who are getting paid for understanding issues like infinity. Also, as one can not observe reality, the question of if there is an infinite amount of materia or limited, can't never be proven to be either. How all the materia is organised in the universe, has more possibilities, than just the ..multiverse theory... It can be, that all the materia is organised to different hierarchies a bit like we can observe now from the inside of atom to observable universe. Different hierarchies with different set of laws that govern.
@@robertm3561 I don't understand why people say that in an infinite universe there are an infinite amount of each of us that do an infinite amount of things. can't space itself be infinite while the matter in it is finite? can't there be one earth in a universe where space expands forever? I've never understood why very smart people say that in an infinite universe there has to be an infinite amount of matter too.
@@Phillip713 I think that there can be only one universe for the very reason, that the space must be endless, thus no other spaces etc. universes and like you said, it is a realistic possibility and not unlikely(imo..), that there is a limited amount of materia in the universe. Nothing points out either case to be more likely. It is what it is, but due to the fact, that materia just doesn't come to existence, there is an infinite history also, thus one/any creature, can't never completely understand the universe.
@@Phillip713 The Eternal Inflation models they are referencing imply both space and matter are infinite. In our observable universe, there is a galaxy roughly every 1-1,000 kiloparsecs. The assumption is that the whole infinite spacetime would maintain this rough distribution of galaxies.
@@Phillip713 In an infinite universe, a finite amount of material will.organise into a finite amount of structures an infinite amount of times
I know people think it's cool that there could be an infinite number of us and the things we know about, but what I find cooler is that there could be an infinite number of UNIQUE things, including things we don't even have the ability to sense or understand, things that are completely oblivious to us
According to some of the thinking in these discussions, the universe would not be infinite without anything existing even an infinite number of times, including unique things. Wait a moment...
Yes -- Ken Olum did say if the Universe is infinite it is **countably** infinite, which doesn't necessarily span all possibilities (like natural numbers vs. real numbers).
Even in an infinite universe, there might only be one copy of you. This is due to the fact that there could also be an infinite number of different possibilities. Hence it would be incorrect to conclude that every possibility occurs an infinite number of times.
Life is more that probability equations! There are an infinite number of possible genetic mutations to consider. Also an infinite number of factors in determining who people decide to marry and which sperm fertilized which egg.
This is true. There are indeed infinite numbers, but there is only one 1 and one 2 etcetera. 1 is not an inifinite number. It is finite. However, it can be used as a number in more than one instance.
No. In an infinite universe with a finite number of types of particles, those particles would arrange themselves an infinite number of times, an infinite number of ways, including an infinite number of ways exactly like you and me , including an infinite number of this exact chat.
Agree there Ken. Every possible outcome is possible in an infinite universe. It’s incorrect to say that every possibility occurs a finite number of times. In an infinite universe there is only infinity. We just only see our version of it.
Reality is infinite consciousness, the nature of consciousness is infinity, it’s not a coincidence that our very existence is made real by the mysterious consciousness and it is also everything there is.
completely agree
Why do you believe that?
@@brothermine2292 It's the most logical explanation. One small reason is that we have DNA. DNA's a code and all codes I know of, require a programmer. To be otherwise remains a non-sequitur. Cannot have a logical code, without a logical programmer. All biological eyes are windows from which the universal consciousness, looks out. It creates and designs the eyes from evolution and problem solving over the course of billions of years so it can look out and learn about aspects of itself. Hence your question as a human being. It is the designed and the designer, the conscious and unconscious. Furthermore 'laws of nature'...all logical laws as those in nature - have to be conceived. So what is this driving force we call 'Nature'..? It uses mathematics, geometry, it problem solves, builds, creates etc etc. All is consciousness, it's the same kind of consciousness that beats your heart, fires your synapses for you, breathes automatically for you so you don't have to think about it, regulates all your internal organs etc. Drives all things within the universe at the same time. It constantly 'does' and is in the process of 'doing', as it evolves to higher levels of consciousness. It's the same for everything within the universal consciousness, or as we call it: 'the universe'.
Consciouness is the cosmos learning to look at itself, understand itself, love itself.
@@normjohnson4629 well said. You understand it perfectly.
It's also possible that universes generate/regenerate infinitely and that all generated universes are of finite areas/spans-of-time. I think this is at least philosophically supported by the facts that
1) the texts available in Borges' "Library of Babel" are finite in number,
2) the texts available in the LoB describe all describable realities, and these realities are described at every possible level of detail,
3) the set of all described possible worlds is finite (even if you arrange the entire set in every conceivable way, producing all possible "sequels" to every description, the possible permutations of the set remain finite. Infinities in orderings of the set are only generated by recurrence, which doesn't work well in permutations that retain the narrative validity of a possible world, and we're really only concerned with possible worlds.).
I.e., Roger Penrose’s Conformal cyclic cosmology theory which postulates an endless, infinite cycle of births, deaths, and rebirths of the Universe.
@@kevinlowercase, that is quite a different phenomenon to what the original poster is postulating. ☝️☝️
I love this channel. Thank you for all that you do Dr. Kuhn, and the seemingly infinite supply of fascinating and diverse interviewees you procure that stimulate the public's intellectual and existential curiosity.
We don't know. These matters exceed human capacity. 😶
A state of the universe only repeats if there are a finite number of states. For example you can arrange 3 colored balls in different orders and there is a small number of way to do that. So given infinite time those few states will repeat and that is true of any finite set of states.
What if there were an infinite amount of states? Then you could have an eternal universe and still have every state be unique. This solves the problem as everything that happens only happens once but reality has an infinite well of creativity to draw out unique and novel states of being.
Right, even if the universe went on for ever, there is still only a finite amount of matter. That doesn't offer very much repeatability.
Unless we're talking many worlds, but that's a whole different headache.
A wise answer to such a question would always be "We don't know" As so much within our finite reach is still vague..
Explanatory Gap !
Infinite number of possibilities occurring infinite number of times. It is beyond human comprehension.
" Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think."
Werner Heisenberg
The universe is infinite. You cant start this and you cant stop this. We are eternal. Everything no matter how bizzare has happened.
An infinite universe will never repeat with infinite variation.
The argument that all countable infinities have the same number of elements is based on the notion that you can construct a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the two infinite sets. That argument has two weaknesses: (1) The one-to-one correspondence isn't the only possible correspondence that can be constructed between the two sets; and (2) the one-to-one correspondence can't be completely constructed due to the infinite number of steps in the construction procedure, so it depends on the assumption (mathematical axiom) that infinite induction is valid.
1 means nothing when you're trying to measure by comparison
2 yes it can, you don't need to physically do it forever, that would be tedious 😂 but seriously no it's possible to work with infinity without taking forever, that's why mathematical proofs even exist
@Kyle Bowles : You neglected to provide a clear reason for saying 1 "means nothing." Can you elaborate?
Your critique of 2 shows you either failed to finish reading 2 or fail to understand the meaning of the end of 2 regarding the dependency on the assumption that induction with infinities is valid. What you vaguely called the "mathematical way of working with infinity" in this case of constructing the one-to-one correspondence is inductive reasoning about the Nth element where N is arbitrarily large. But the fact is that any arbitrarily large number is finite, which means mathematicians must depend on the assumption (an axiom) that induction is valid for infinite sets. Dependency on an assumption is obviously a weakness, because assumptions aren't proved.
Consider the infinite set of prime numbers, which is a strict subset of the set of positive integers (the "natural numbers"). For any integer N greater than 4, there are fewer prime numbers less than N than natural numbers less than N. That ratio decreases monotonically as N increases, so it's dubious to think the ratio jumps up to one when N is infinity.
I’m glad he clarified what infinity means at the start cos I was struggling with that. And that he says that there are countable infinities and that one infinity isn’t the same size as another infinity mocks the definition of infinity. Hitting the iceberg an infinite number of times is the same as not hitting it, in an infinite universe or universes. Seems like he forgot his grade 2 maths there. I could be wrong.
Suppose I were to write a list of every number between 0 and 1. My list might look like this:
1 ~ 0.50000...
2 ~ 0.33333...
3 ~ 0.66666...
etc.
Cantor showed that no matter how long you make this list, there is always a number that is omitted. What this shows is that there are more numbers between 0 and 1 than counting numbers aka {1,2,3,4...}
Does that make sense?
@@mesplin3 hmmm, it would be fun to see if the list of all possible pairs of natural numbers is still smaller than all reals between 0 and 1. Unless there were collisions (probably) they could be the same size
@@kylebowles9820 Here's a method that produces a number that is between 0 and 1 that is guaranteed not to be on my list. The key idea is to look at each digit on the diagonal.
For the tenths place, pick a different digit than the digit used for the tenths place from the first number on the list. For the hundredths place, pick a different digit than the digit used for the hundredths place from the second number on the list. For the thousandths place, pick a different digit than the digit used for the thousandths place from the third number on the list. Continue following this pattern.
This will result with a new number that is not on the list. Even if the original list is infinite, this number will still not be on the list.
Since this number is not on the list, then there are "more" numbers between 0 and 1 than counting numbers.
@@kylebowles9820This is a really insightful question!
The answer: the list of all pairs of integers is *still* the same size as the list of all integers.
To clarify a little on Ken's point: when we say "same size", we really mean "we can match these two lists up in a 1-to-1 correspondence". If every member of set A has a partner in set B, and vice-versa, then both sets are the same size; for infinite sets, that's the best we can do.
So here's your matching-up of the "integers" with the "pairs-of-integers":
0 (0,0)
1 (1,0)
2 (1,1)
3 (0,1)
4 (0,2)
5 (1,2)
6 (2,2)
7 (3,2)
...
As a list, this seems a little haphazard - but if you plot the right half out on a grid (1st point, 2nd point, 3rd point...), you'll see a neat little zigzag that's easy enough to follow. (I've been a little cheeky here and just used the positive integers, but if you want to come up with your own version including the negatives too, there's a hint below¹.)
In other words: the set of all coordinate pairs (x, y) is countably infinite, because you can count them²!
¹🌀
²until you get bored of counting, at least 😅
No, you are not wrong. This highly intelligent speaker is totally incoherent and has problems with logic.
I still can't believe Ken is only 24! 😊
😂
I actually can’t stop laughing
🤣
It amazes me how many times speakers on here say the same thing again and again. Since Einstein we have just been going around in circles. Are you actually getting closer to the truth?
wouldn’t that be the definition of “getting closer to the truth?” wouldn’t consistently different answers mean there was no consensus?
Your statement is false. This concept relies upon inflation which was theorized after Einstein’s work.
@@JamyRyals which we do not know for certain is correct.
This interview is quite old. The observations and data coming from the JWST looks to be making those in this field to scratching their heads.
@@mitseraffej5812 in what way?
Nietzsche has argued the principle of eternal recurrence without inflation
The universe by definition has to be of infinite size, and always has been. The event refereed to as the Big Bang was merely a change in state of the universe, akin to a phase change.
You confuse our current best theory with establishe fact.
@@gordonquimby8907 By “best theory”do you mean the most widely accepted theory?
Likewise for the definition of “ established fact”.
Discrete quantum systems have no "size".
Why can't it be of finite size? Infinite size is just so untidy.
@@andyiswonderful Being of finite size implies that there is a boundary, whatever exists outside the boundary is by definition part of the universe.
love these discussions!
We didn’t get an answer to the question of Cantor’s denumerable infinities; that is, could the universe be infinite and never repeat?
I think that one observable universe is uncountable, but an infinite universe is a countable number of observable universes, so it seems obvious that it will not repeat ... and so you done have another you elsewhere in the universe.
You should look up tree 3
If the Universe is infinite then all points are at its center. Just think you are at the center of an infinite Universe! 🎉
This sounds extremely similar to quantum mechanics. Particles have infinite possibilities but we happen to see just this one. That cant be a coincidence. They are somehow connected I think.
And what occurs and how often by probability. The probability of there being you or I is quite possibly infinitely small, that is 1/infinity and if this is multiplied by infinity we arise at just one occurrence.
I know for sure that I exist, for how much longer is in the lap of the probability gods.
I think you are right. The universe is thought to be that which contains everything. Therefor, the universe must be limitless - if it wasn't, something outside the universe would pose a limit on it, but since per our definition there can't be anything outside the universe... it must not have any limits.
Now I believe that the only thing that IS limitless is pure potential, namely the potential for anything. So anything is possible. So by this thinking, the universe would be pure potential. Now, that anything is possible does not mean that everything actually comes into existence (becomes manifest). So what we actually see around us is still limited, even if it appears in a limitless universe.
I think this is reflected in our understanding of quantum physics. The pure potential for things to exist is the probability field - which actually is already limited, but it wasn't at the time of the bing bang where still all possibilities were valid. The universe is going down the path of manifesting actual things out of that field of limitless possibilities. The path of time would be the direction where more and more limits are put onto the probability field. We experience this as causation. Manifestation would be the collapse of the quantum field.
This dude his voice is really nice especially for his age to listen to
It would mean the programmers made a recursion error. I just made a video about this.
This video goes on for ever
If humankind could stay on earth for an infinite amount of time, I don’t think we would ever see the same exact person born again.
Then you dont understand infinity. Anything that can happen eventually will happen and not just once, it will happen infinite times.
@@MrBorndd but time still happens, so no two events will ever happen in the same conditions. I admit to not understanding time.
@@itzed If you rolled a 6-sided dice 6 times, you wouldn't be that surprised if you rolled the number 3 at least twice, it's not unlikely; but if you rolled a 20-sided dice 6 times, the same number appearing twice would be a bit more surprising because for the 6 throws there were 19 other numbers that it could have been, whereas the 6-sided dice only had 5 others. However, if I rolled the 20-sided dice 40 times, I would be less surprised if I rolled the number 7 twice or three times because given more rolls, the likelihood of the number repeating increases. So you can think of all the combinations of human DNA as the number of sides on a dice (a finite number, but huge), and an infinite amount of time as an infinite amount of rolls. For any collection of finite things that can happen, given an infinite amount of time they will all happen an infinite number of times. Whether I rolled a 6-sided dice or a 20-sided dice, if I rolled them both an infinite number of times then I would roll every number on both of them an infinite number of times.
@@MrBorndd Do YOU understand infinity?
oh weird i just made a video about robert and how infinity drives him nuts. haha.
Isn't it crazy to think that every piece of cinema made has or is going to play out in reality.... even the actors will live these moments for real.
This infinite number of possibilities at the moment seems hard to fathom. Is there somewhere I could be a different race or gender but still be me? What is me?
If the universe is infinite then every possible human being that could exist would exist. Since all possible configurations of matter are repeated an infinite number of times, there would be an infinite number of humans that look exactly like you, but there would also be an infinite number of humans that look almost like you but their noses bend a bit more to the left, and there'd be an infinite number of them with every possibly skin colour and sex that's expressible by DNA. It's hard to think about where I, individually, fit into all of that but it's amazing and humbling to think about.
@@raurora, can you not understand how incoherent that sounds? 🙄
There would be people with your exact DNA, in fact infinitely many of them. But they wouldn't be you. They would be more like your identical twin. There would also be people with almost identical DNA who would be as much like you as it is possible to be but of a different race, gender, or a different (but very similar) species. Again they wouldn't be you, they would just be people who bore an uncanny resemblance to you.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Infinity can be quite unfathomable, yes.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices It made perfect sense to me. 🤨
I watched the two recent videos about “What would an infinite universe mean” and I think they both misunderstood the math of infinity. For instance the idea that there have to be an infinite number of copies of “you” out there because the probability of you is not 0 and the universe is infinite. When I was in high school calculus, we regularly calculated the limit of things that approached zero times the limit of things that approached infinity. This is basically the definition of the integral. And that calculation had a result that could be plus or minus infinity or zero or anything in between. Weirdly, the fact that you exist doesn’t mean that the probability of you existing is not 0. If the probability of you existing is something that approaches zero, you could be unique.
And of course, the question of the probability of your existence begs the question of what you are. Are you that little bit of material defined by the limits of your body? What about the sensory input that you receive? Are you the same person in a dark room as you are at the beach? And what about your history, would you be the same person if your parents had gotten divorced when you were 10? An affirmative answer to either of these indicates that you are defined by your subjective experience, not your material state because the material states if your being are different in both examples. A negative answer indicates a kind of hyper locality to the definition of you, that you are the one particular and unique place in the gigantic expanding quantum wave front that we call reality. The question of the probability of your existence kind of assumes a material definition of you.
Joshua was reconsidering the utilitarian goal in the face of an infinite universe, like how can you add to the total good if it is already infinite. But you can (easily) redefine the utilitarian using the ideas about infinity above. It’s not the greatest good for the greatest number in the entire universe but the greatest density of good for the greatest number. You can increase the density of good ever if you can’t increase its total. Also, even though the universe is infinite, you are not. You can measure the greatest good locally in which case the utilitarian gets redefined as the greatest good for the greatest number that you can do anything about.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
also by definition nothingness itself is something..................as it can be defined.
That was interesting. When you bring infinities into it, it completely screws up your ability to talk coherently about probabilities.
Infinity is ot really a quantity, in the sense that any number is. Once you say that the infinite universe is big or small or any quantity, you are no longer taking about infinity anymore, because any number no matter how big , it's only an infinitesimal part of infinity ...
Infinite in all respects? Could some aspects of the Universe be infinite while other aspects are finite?
"The big bang" was one phenomenon inside the universe. No reason to assert that it was first or only. It would be cool to eventually observe one object that's clearly older.
Imagine a trillion-years-old red dwarf floating around inside our few billion light years.
We don't have a problem with infinities. We have a problem with Inflation Theory and that problem is that we accept it. It explains our observations but so did the Theory of General Relativity with the cosmological constant included.
People struggle wth the concept of infinity, especially in terms of the universe. However, it can be observed on our world alone, if you know where to find it.
My Mom (Dorothy Alise) used to say "everything is everything"
It depends what do You mean by "Universe", but it is infinite.
could an infinitesimal time develop into an infinite space for cosmos?
Maybe a better question might be, what are the implications of a finite universe?
That is easy. In a finite universe there is an end to your reality, in an infinite one you go on forever, or, put another way, if we live in an infinite universe we live in Hell.
Interesting question, it may set a boundary on the lowest energy state and it will set a boundary on entropy because of how complementary variables work (eg could a finite universe hold a wave who's wavelength is larger than the container universe?) It'd look like a DC component lol .... Oh that kinda exists with vacuum energy (but it's not the same as what I'm talking about)
Infinite Universe does not mean there are infinite copies. Uniqueness is also part of the universe.
I tend to agree with you. I think uniqueness is a special characteristic of our Cosmos. And if you believe in a Creator, that uniqueness is special because it points to God's love.
Peace
That's nice. Can you prove it? :)
So how many copies? Just 1? 10? A million?
I've always thought that the universe is infinite and I also imagined that infinitely large some how transitioned to infinitely small. Vicious cycle.
The math can’t show how close the theorized doppelgängers are from each other. Or, if it does, it’s probably an infinite distance between. The odds of a creature on another planet having your exact life experience is ZERO over infinity.
I think the argument, that probability can't be determined due to the fact that both sets are infinite, is flawed. With basic calculus, it's trivial to find any real number as the ratio of two divergent series. e.g., the ratio of the sum of all whole numbers to the sum of all whole number exponentiations of e, is the inverse of e.
Another example, for uncountable sets, would be the probability of a dart hitting a bullseye, when there are an uncountable possible locations where a dart could land.
Maybe Olum isn't articulating the argument effectively, but it makes his perspective of infinities weak.
Mathematicians do blaze the trails and then physicists come along later
hypothesis: breaking the symmetry of infinity. infinity is symmetric and asymmetric at the same time, and infinity is in a metastable state of continuous breaking/restoring of symmetry. The broken symmetry of infinity is finiteness. When the symmetry of infinity breaks, you are born into finiteness, where all symmetries are broken, but this state is finite by definition and it tends to end and restore the symmetry of infinity, which is called "death". But after the symmetry of infinity is restored, it breaks again and you are born again, and this is the process of endless breaking / restoring the symmetry of infinity. From infinity to finiteness and from finiteness back to infinity and so on.
Once we get past the concept of the "observable" Universe, then beyond to the boundary of the actual, physical Universe. We then come to the void beyond. How was it created and how far can it extend?
I feel the same about the idea of an infinitely recurring universe as I feel about the infinite monkey analogy. An infinite number of monkeys hitting randomly on keyboards would eventually come up with the works of Shakespeare. But they would also come up with the entire works of Shakespeare except for missing a comma between to be, or not to be; ditto where they type xo be, or not to be; etc. an infinite number of times. This is the most egregious example of the universe failing Occam's razor as an explanation.
Clearly correct. Plus, we know that that cross-sections of the universe are changing (what "expanding universe" actually means) which means what we call the universe isn't infinite in the way they're using it. Quarks alone give immense weight to this argument. Cheers
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
To be, or not to be, that is the quex#*^tion. I guess there could also be a Planet of the Apes, where the monkey who wrote the almost Shakespearean play is revered as a literary genius.
@@R_M.P The possibilities are endless😉
Trying to extract probabilities out of an infinite universe is a fallacy. The probability of an event occurring is an output of it's LOCAL conditions. For example, the probability of Ken and Robert being hit by a run away train as they sit there on that boat is zero. An infinite universe doesn't change that.
The probability they hit an ice burg is low because a large number of unlikely LOCAL events have to occur in a sequence before the boat hits the iceburg
1.Ice must have formed in an area that doesn't usually have ice
2.Ice must be big enough to damage boat but small enough not to see
3.Captain doesn't just steer around the ice burg etc.
That unlikely series of events remains locally true across each countable macro state in an infinite universe. So whats the problem?
They always talk about how big the universe is and how it's expanding but never about the empty space it's expanding in that's what I'm more interested in??
Legend has it that Ken is 22 pretending to be 65.
That's actually Charlie Day with a latex mask on
A young bearded Larry David
This guy is the example of subjective science. Importance is six objectivity is always right guaranteed after life. Subjectivities is always wrong no after life.
Bottom line: Some things are probably just unknowable.
Well said
With the understanding in science that has occurred in just the past 500 years it's not that unlikely that in another couple thousand we could figure these things out. If we as a species are still around and haven't started nuking each other.
An infinite universe means to me that every bad AND good thing you can think of happening to you or your loved ones or anyone has happened, will happen and IS happening.
Here is something I've never understood. Maybe someone can help me. I have seen many conversations discussing infinity. And just like in this conversation, people will say that in an infinite universe anything can happen an infinite number of ways. In this video they talk about hitting an iceberg while another set of them does not hit an iceberg. I want to know why people are equating an infinite amount of space to an infinite amount of things that can happen in that space. space could be infinite. there could also only be one earth in that infinite space. if all you had is a single rock in the universe then the universe and space could be infinite while that one rock is all that is in that universe. I just don't understand why people keep saying that an infinite universe has to have more than one of everything. the space itself could be all that is infinite with a finite amount of matter
In those theories, anything possible not just might happen, it has to happen. We know obviously that things could happen differently. I just misspelled "differently" and corrected it. I didn't have to misspell it. All kinds of different things could happen, big and small. The end result is that with infinite iterations all possible things happen.
In my opinion its even harder to think about a finite universe.
"Infinity" is a concept that humans can't really wrap their heads around. Maybe there is a species out there somewhere that can comprehend infinity, but it isn't us.
My hunch is that the Universe must be infinite bc there would otherwise have to be a transition point where space ends and nothingness begins…and infinity is somehow easier for me to believe than the notion that everything is encapsulated within nothing.
Infinity is hard, if not impossible to grasp, bc our minds evolved in a finite world.
some people are just devoid of any common sense. If the universe is infinite in size that does not mean that the amount of matter in the universe is infinite, that could be completely unrelated.
why are probabilities needed for infinite cosmos?
To see symmetry
Given that we don't understand how inflation started, why do scientist assume that it couldn't it slow down or stop altogether?
A lot of beautiful words and explanations that don't answer the question of infinity. If the universe is infinite, what is it expanding into? I believe it is all an illusion, and we'll only find out the true answer when we die and go to heaven. 😇
It’s strange to hear a scientist say, “I don’t know”
I know I know what you’re thinking. But still, it’s nice to hear.
2023
Everything in universe is probably simple and can be explained the problem is we are so low in intelligence so we can not figure it out. Thats why we always say INFINITE because we can not understand something.
If the early universe had an finite amount of matter, an infinite later universe woudnt have an infinite number of us? Or does more matter just appear due to quantum fluctuations?
No, an infinite universe does not automatically mean there are infinite many copies of "us". That assumes that the universe is uniform at higher and higher scales which to me sounds absurd (my point, however, is that it is an additional assumption not mentioned, whether absurd or not) If the amount of energy present in the universe systimatically decreases as you move in certain directions, there is no chance things keep repeating.
This is exactly what one of the latest physical paper on quantum physics, "Relativity of superluminal observers in 1+3 spacetime", advocates. Basically Newtonian physics is no longer valid, everything has to be treated by means of field theory. For example a thrown apple is in fact moving along all possible trajectories at once. And what we observe as a final trajectory is simply the most likely probability. Apple's trajectories are in fact a gradio so to speak. But for superluminal observers, this apple is moving in three dimensions of TIME, not space.
At 1:00 he says the universe is like an “endless” surface of an expanding sphere and says that means the universe is infinite.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood but seems like is mixing up boundless and infinite. The surface of a sphere is boundless - it has no edges - but it is not infinite.
Basically scientists dont know.
500 years ago Guru nanak said in japji sahib. Humans will get tired of thinking even then they will never find limits of Gods creation and the universe. It's infinite
If something exists, than that begs the question where is it contained? Then you have to wonder where does 'where' exist. This leads to the conceptual answer that there would have to be an infinite area, because it's unlikely that non existence of space exists.
*"If something exists, than that begs the question where is it contained?"*
... Correct! Existence operates via a dichotomic template: particle-antiparticle, positive-negative, upquark-downquark, life-death, good-evil, and of course *matter-space.* Existence provides us the tools for discerning the true characteristics of the universe, and based on what the universe is offering us, it is most likely finite with a measurable origin point.
"Infinity" and "zero" are also a part of this dichotomic template, but infinity is still always constrained on one end via "zero." If this is the case for mathematics (which permeates the universe), then it should also be the case for the universe.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC The Universe is self contained. The Universe does not exists it is just there.
@@kos-mos1127 *"The Universe is self contained. The Universe does not exists it is just there."*
... If something exists, then it has a location (i.e., "it's there"). Things that aren't "there" are nonexistent by definition.
A museum is a container that holds a wide variety of art. The art is what people come to see, and the museum allows people to see the art in a single place. Even though the art is what people come to see, the museum exists right along with the art.
Consider the universe as a museum and everything held within it as art, and we can both agree that the universe exists.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC The Universe does not have a location as space is an emergent property of the universe.
@@kos-mos1127 *"The Universe does not have a location as space is an emergent property of the universe."*
... The universe can be counted, ("1"), it has a location (wherever it is), and the universe is an emergent property of "Existence." That's all in my book, man!
The problem is that when we think we have it figured out we have closed out all other possibilities and that puts us right back in the problem ..
Could it infinitely happen that some "one thing" continue not to happen more then once?
Infinity is synonymous with growth. A snapshot of infinity is finite. Time allows for infinity.
Sorry but infinity is infinity. Something doesn’t start out at 1 then grow to become 2 and eventually grow to become infinite. If it’s infinite it’s always been infinite. Time is a human concept. An infinite universe doesn’t possess such a thing as time.
@@colinhackett390 Time is an electromagnetic wave. Time is three dimensional. Time is evidenced by motion. Time moves at different velocities in different areas of the universe. Time may accelerate and decelerate. Investigate more if you are interested.
Even if there is an edge of the universe where there are no more galaxies or anything. There is still empty space for the universe to expand into, therefore, infinite
I don’t think it necessarily follows that infinity and exact repetition go hand in hand in the physical universe. Once physicists let go of this, Platonic mathematical paradoxes go away. For a repeating occurrence to be exactly the same it would have to take place in exactly the same space and time. Even in one individual’s body it’s different from moment to moment as cells die and divide and molecules vibrate.
This of course questions free will. Does it exist? Are we bound to certain probabilities?
What does the size of the universe have to do with free will?
@@chrisgarret3285 If there are multiple copies of us doing exactly the same thing, how is that free will?
@@Cognaxance each of them is in fact the definition of free will, the conflict you're talking about wouldn't happen if there was no free will - all would do the same!
@@chrisgarret3285 But that is the supposition. If the universe is infinite, then there are multiple copies of you and I doing the same thing an infinite number of times. Whereas free will would mean no two copies are ever doing the same thing.
Would mean that anything that can possibly happen does/is/will happen.
“… it’s easy to talk about an infinite universe, but maybe somehow it doesn’t make sense.” We think because we can imagine something it might be real - like building a new house. But we can also imaging all kinds of things that may or may not be real. Like infinity. The simplest concept of infinity is a process of taking a number and repeatedly adding 1 to it “ad infinitum”. The process itself is not infinite - it will end at some point when whatever is doing the process is halted. Only the idea of the process is “infinite”. So we can have the idea of infinity but that does not mean it must be a property of reality. Our brain is a computer - all thought is based on comparison. “0” is not nothing, it is the empty set, the condition that is not 1 or 2 or … any other number. You cannot design a computer that is based only on 1’s. The point is, when you try to imagine the universe, you must imagine something NOT the universe. Therefore the universe you imagine must have a boundary. The simplest case is a closed universe - such as a baloon, or some other mathematical model that includes a NOT-universe. Given this limitation on our ability to imagine the limit(s) of the universe, what are we to do?
I find it odd that people can blithely say "the universe is expanding" (as in, more space is being added uniformly throughout), without ever wondering "how?" Where is all this extra space coming from? It's a bit like taking gravity for granted without ever wondering why that force exists.
Is space infinite? Does it really matter? We already have more than enough of it. Is time infinite? Given that we have the term "eternity," clearly we think it probably is. But we puny humans have no way of actually knowing either for sure.
You know, the universe is really just a stage for life. it's size is only peripherally related to that function.
Is gravity a force? Is more space being added or is the current space expanding like a ballon? Is time a dimension? Can a cold dark universe produce life? You use many assumptions in your statement and it raises more questions than answers.
they're conflating mathematically possible with physically possible...........🤔
possible vs probable
i guess the way i don't lose my mind over the infinite copies of the same earth is that only a finite portion of the universe is even observable to us (let alone physically reachable) so if something exists so far away we can't ever hope to sense it in anyway i guess it doesn't bother me as much that it exists in theory "out there". the thing that does confuse me though is that expansion can take us from a finite volume to an infinite volume. as he mentioned before, infinite is infinite, not just "very large" but i thought expansion was an unexpectedly sudden and fast expansion to make our current observations match with initial conditions (which...seems a bit like cheating but i assume they have other clues to justify it...). but if that's the case it's just "very fast"?
Robert, do you have a place for me to watch longer content you have created?
If the universe is infinite AND expanding, what is it expanding in to...?
If the universe is finite but expanding, what is it expanding in to...?
Ah Ken Olum makes a distinction here: the Universe can be countably infinite in size (vs uncountably infinite) and not contain every possibility such as exact copies of the Earth and you & I existing out there somewhere.
I keep hearing astronomers & physicists talking about duplicate versions of Earth & you but strictly speaking that doesn't necessarily follow from an infinite Universe.
If we put our universe aside for one moment, we can still have the concept of infinity BUT only if the concept of mind exists too. Infinity ultimately depends on mind.
Now apply this to the universe... the infinite universe depends on mind. What mind... the fundamental mind inherent in our universe.
Given no-one can define or know what infinity is, then attributing it to anything of substance is a moot point. Or maybe the world of a mathematician only
When is "now" in an infinite universe? What if there is no deterministic future but only the most probable "now", and a certain number of past paths leading to the present? How many different choices could I have made and still ended up where I am right now? It's probably not an infinite number. I have a hard time believing that when I turn right an alternate me turns left and our universes diverge. It makes more sense to me that alternate versions of myself arrive (coalesce, emerge) at the nexus of "now" from the most probable adjacent dimensions. A staggeringly huge, yet finite number of different probable pasts, converging on the present, continually across the infinite universe, where it is always...right now.
That question makes no sense if you think about it.
I understand the decimals of an irrational number never repeat themselves even unto infinity. So why would an infinite universe repeat events ever? Or do we assume the universe, multiverse or infiniverse to be a rational number?
Talking of an infinite universe with infinite possibilities would include even the impossibility of such a universe existing as one of the infinite possibilies already. So I really question that idea of infinity
I think that one observable universe is uncountable, but an infinite universe is a countable number of observable universes, so it seems obvious that it will not repeat ... and so you done have another you elsewhere in the universe.
My gut feeling is that the universe is infinite from our perspective. If we were to travel out to the edge, it would keep growing faster than we could keep up. Of course we will never know for sure one way or the other unless we find out how to cheat the universal speed limit.
When it comes to infinity l like the question, "what's the biggest number you can think of? "
The universe is infinite in itself, but it is finite, yet expanding...is more like it.
As much as the speed of light is not the fastest possible speed.
It is the fastest possible speed with 100% information transfer.
When it's faster than that almost all the information gets lost. About 98% to be exact.
In other words: Say you transmit a song via Wi-Fi, so at the speed of light you hear the entire song, but if you could transmit it at 30 times the speed of light all you would hear will be a mumbo jumbo of a few notes.
Our Local Universe is 'Infinite' in it's own Perspective.
Infinity is a Eternal Principle.
There is in Basic Six different kind of Infinite Universes,
they all Rest in the Seven't Universe.
(Rainbow)
What about the idea of the infinite universe that doesn’t have a single copy of the Earth? Infinite universes don’t presuppose the multiverse
please watch only until 6:24, you can skip the disappointment. "we really don't know, could be either way, we do not understand infinity, we do not understand the universe, we do not ...."