Can infinite improbability exist?

[just_words 10]

Yes, fair point.

 

Although it might be worth quoting Arthur C Clarke with "Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic", or words to that affect if I got it slightly wrong.

 

I thought that was a quote by Paul Daniels.

[Cyclone 10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

 

Clarke.

 

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

I got it pretty close.

[chem1st 10]

Can anything be absolutely improbable? Think about it, isn't everything just probable or improbable to varying degrees?

 

Therefore, in the supposedly (probably) infinite vastness that surrounds us, somewhere, at some point, something very very strange will occur (e.g. a llama spontaneously manifesting and turning inside out).

 

For example, think of something, anything you would deem "impossible". Well, how do you know that it's simply not improbable to the degree of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000:1?

 

In your lifetime, and in the lifetime of the entire human race and perhaps our solar system, that event would most likely not occur. But given enough time, in the realm of infinite space and time, it WILL surely happen.

 

Now think about this - imagine you are god and you can see "time" as a singular dimension. You basically have the brain power to see time as one unit, with no beginning or end - everything that will "happen" has "happened". This would allow you to see every event, no matter how improbable, contained within this dimension of time, occur at once. Now, if nothing can be infinitely improbable, then what you will see is an infinite concentration of every possible event that could ever occur - that is, everything and anything you can think of, and infinitely more than that, all happening in an infinitely narrow window of time.

 

*implodes*

 

As 'God' you would see anything that could possibly happen would happen in that small window and then be repeated an infinite amount of times.

 

We can look at something like radioactive decay and be unable to predict the next decay, but could predict general decay fairly accurately if given enough time.

 

Picture the known universe as a point in space at one end of our known universe, and picture another 'universe' as a point in space at the other end. Then imagine many many more as points each the same distance apart (in practice this wouldn't be the case as they would be in a continual state of motion and thus of varying distance).

With a little bit of motion, maybe dictated by the gravitational forces between the universes, one day two universe would collide and an event such as the big bang could occur, where all the fragments of 2 universes would be spread outwards from the point of collison.

 

Universes could be of varying size etc., unfortunately with them being so massive to comprehend I fail to see how they could be grouped like the periodic table of elements.

However, if they are acting upon each other by means of gravity I think it would be possible to measure the mass/rough position of universes (or groups of them acting as a single mass), by measuring the changes in the expansion rates and direction of various parts our own universe over a long enough period of time.

 

A universe could also be theoretically torn apart by others, but then of course incorporated into them.

 

However taking such measurements would IMO be a waste of time. We might be able to predict our universe colliding with another, but if it is going to be happening in an amount of time a billion times more than the amount of time of our Suns lifespan, it wouldn't be of much use to us. (Maybe it would allow for a better understanding of the smallest particles known currently)

 

Besides, we have probably had this conversation (motion) in a different universe at a different place in the space system a long time ago. Or if not, we are likely to do so again some time in the very distant future.

[just_words 10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

 

Clarke.

 

Absolutely, I thought it was from The Time Machine.

[Idler 10]

..............

Edited March 10, 2010 by Idler

[Cyclone 10]

As 'God' you would see anything that could possibly happen would happen in that small window and then be repeated an infinite amount of times.

 

We can look at something like radioactive decay and be unable to predict the next decay, but could predict general decay fairly accurately if given enough time.

 

Picture the known universe as a point in space at one end of our known universe, and picture another 'universe' as a point in space at the other end. Then imagine many many more as points each the same distance apart (in practice this wouldn't be the case as they would be in a continual state of motion and thus of varying distance).

With a little bit of motion, maybe dictated by the gravitational forces between the universes, one day two universe would collide and an event such as the big bang could occur, where all the fragments of 2 universes would be spread outwards from the point of collison.

 

Universes could be of varying size etc., unfortunately with them being so massive to comprehend I fail to see how they could be grouped like the periodic table of elements.

However, if they are acting upon each other by means of gravity I think it would be possible to measure the mass/rough position of universes (or groups of them acting as a single mass), by measuring the changes in the expansion rates and direction of various parts our own universe over a long enough period of time.

 

A universe could also be theoretically torn apart by others, but then of course incorporated into them.

 

However taking such measurements would IMO be a waste of time. We might be able to predict our universe colliding with another, but if it is going to be happening in an amount of time a billion times more than the amount of time of our Suns lifespan, it wouldn't be of much use to us. (Maybe it would allow for a better understanding of the smallest particles known currently)

 

Besides, we have probably had this conversation (motion) in a different universe at a different place in the space system a long time ago. Or if not, we are likely to do so again some time in the very distant future.

I get the feeling that you might be confusing universe and galaxy.

[Bucketta 10]

Llamas are made up of elements much smaller than their whole.

 

This concept of "infinite lines within a circle" reminds me of another similar concept I often ponder...

 

What is the smallest space that can possibly be whilst still being larger than no space at all? Why can't there be a smaller space than that? Repeat ad nauseum.

 

Have a look for 'Plancks Length'... quoted as roughly 1.6 x 10^-35m and is believed to be the smallest unit of measurement at which things exist. This is small enough to include superstrings.

 

This leads to such questions as "can something be infinitely small?" - or is that simply what the singularity represents? A bit of a copout if you ask me.

 

From above theory of Plancks length, no object can be infinitely small. However this only covers 'things' and not concepts.

 

Follow in your mind the process of an ever decreasing circle - even if this is all just a concept of the human mind born from intrigue, there are not many concepts out there that do not eventually meet a finite end.

 

Ever decreasing circles... in quantum terms it's known as a degenerate orbit. QM came about as physicists realised that classical physics states that electrons will fall into an atoms nucleus and this is clearly not the case. Again though this is only 'particles'.

 

Whether it's the ever decreasing circle, or indeed the ever enlargening circle, whether of conceptual or physical significance, these paradoxes exist just outside the grasp of understanding. It feels like there is no reason why these concepts should lie outside human understanding... they just do.

 

 

I like this discussion. (0: Also regarding the lifetime of the universe, it doesn't get anywhere near infinite before things get very cold and gloomy... 10^14 years everything is burned out and the universe is a cold shell of slowly evaporating black holes. 10^40 years into our universe it rips itself apart completely. There are conflicting theoris but they all seem to hint that the distant future of the universe is a pretty gloomy one.

[Smithster 10]

Surely by definition of infinity nothing that doesnt break the laws of physics is impossible and equally true is its not even improbable. (of course our understanding of physics is probably incomplete)

 

I would say that is infinitely probable

[Tripitaka 10]

This has made me too depressed and I am off to play Krikkit with marvin.

[orbrey 10]

Watch out for those errant Chesterfield sofas.

[Smithster 10]

This has made me too depressed and I am off to play Krikkit with marvin.

 

would you like me to recite some poetry to cheer you up?...

 

Oh fuddled gruntbuggly

Thy micturations are to me

like flurdled grabblebotchits on a turgid bee

[Phanerothyme 12]

Llamas are made up of elements much smaller than their whole.

 

Very interesting read this thread. Thanks to all who contributed.

 

This concept of "infinite lines within a circle" reminds me of another similar concept I often ponder...

 

What is the smallest space that can possibly be whilst still being larger than no space at all? Why can't there be a smaller space than that? Repeat ad nauseum.

 

This leads to such questions as "can something be infinitely small?" - or is that simply what the singularity represents? A bit of a copout if you ask me.

 

Follow in your mind the process of an ever decreasing circle - even if this is all just a concept of the human mind born from intrigue, there are not many concepts out there that do not eventually meet a finite end.

 

Whether it's the ever decreasing circle, or indeed the ever enlargening circle, whether of conceptual or physical significance, these paradoxes exist just outside the grasp of understanding. It feels like there is no reason why these concepts should lie outside human understanding... they just do.

 

I think that questions like these (and achilles and the tortoise) illustrate the inadequacy of our own abstractions.

 

Circles don't exist. If you can make a notional circle decrease in radius infinitely, then it is because your models allow it to do so.

 

A circular arrangement of stuff cannot decrease in radius infinitely.

 

Infinite improbability must equate to impossibility or probability 0.0, in the same way that a straight line is defined as an arc on a circle of infinite radius.

 

IMO