sci/15352284.txt

-----
--- 15352284
So if the universe is infinite in size and roughly uniform in all directions, wouldn't that mean that if I travelled in any direction, the earth would just repeat itself an infinite number of times?

What am I missing???? (I made this post an infinite number of times already)
--- 15352294
If the universe is infinite then there is a chance there is a second earth with humans. But, consider how small this chance is, it has to exist, the chance is just very small and the probability to find this earth is about as zero as the amount of women you fucked as well as high as the amount of cocks you sucked
--- 15352313
>>15352294

non zero multiplied with infinity equals infinity retard
--- 15352369
>>15352284 (OP)
Rare deep water nigger
--- 15352373
>>15352284 (OP)
I mean technically yeah. It's not though and you would have to travel across an absurdly large amount of space to find just one other Earth
--- 15352715
>>15352284 (OP)
Yes. You can calculate it as well: just take the volume of the observable universe as well as every "pixel" (I would use "atom", but it would confuse a 90 IQ reader) of it, which may be equal to the planck scale, and calculate the number of permutations. After a certain distance, there cannot be any new permutations, i.e. one (the one you are interested in) repeats. It turns out the distance to identical observable volume is like 10^120 meters away.
Naturally, the next identical Earth is ridiculously closer.
--- 15352733
But that would be silly. There should be a scientific principle which we can use to dismiss theories based on the silliness of their implications. First we need a scientific way to measure silliness though.
--- 15352794
>>15352733

you just say that because you can't grasp what infinity means
--- 15352891
>>15352715
do you mean that in an infinite universe, after some distance the content within the universe must repeat ? Why would it repeat ?
--- 15352922
>>15352891
>content within the universe
Within the observable universe.
It's the bubble of observable stuff centered on the Earth. Outside the bubble there is more universe.
>Why would it repeat ?
Because in a finite volume, there is only a limited number of arrangements (permutations) of stuff.
This is equivalent to the statement that in a finite volume, there can not be an infinite way how stuff can be arranged. This should be very logically obvious and intuitive.
--- 15353645
>>15352922
The question was about an infinite volume though not a finite volume. There could also be infinite undiscovered types of particles in which case nothing would repeat
--- 15353652
>>15352284 (OP)
>if the universe is infinite in size
it isn't
--- 15353691
>>15353645
>The question was about an infinite volume though not a finite volume
Are you fucking stupid? Can you really not parse my post? Yes -- I talk about finite volumes as distributed over infinite space -- you know what, I give up. Try to read both my posts again, with 20 or 30 IQ points more if it helps you.

Everyone else, how do I explain this to someone so phenomenally stupid?
--- 15353697
>>15352284 (OP)
Humans can't comprehend infinities, so don't bother
--- 15353716
>>15353691
Nothing you've said so far makes any sense
--- 15353744
>>15353708
>you have poor communication skills because you're low iq
>No U
Get a brain. Get creative.
>you also have low emotional self control
Do you always give people unsolicited advice? What exactly is going through your brain when you are doing that? Do you think you offer interesting or even helpful insights? Do you such a statement serves as "banter"?
>and your sci-fi space fantasies are cringe
In case you are the astute reader, I did not make the thread. I just confirmed to the OP it's mathematically likely.
>>15353716
I pity you. Truly.
--- 15353772
>>15352284 (OP)
The universe would be infinite because you would be the one expanding it. You're not necessarily going to find anything.
--- 15354134
>>15352922
Just because there's a finite number of permutations doesn't mean that all of them occur multiple times (or even once). Retard
--- 15354150
>>15354134
Sure, there infinitely small chance that it does not repeat.
But the chance that it does repeat is infinitely close to 100%, so...
--- 15354175
Yes, but you will need to travel for an infinite amount of time before you reach it. So bring a book to read.
--- 15354337
>>15354175
That was a silly joke but it made me chuckle.
--- 15354371
>>15352284 (OP)
"Roughly uniform" isn't really a rigorous definition so the question as you've posed it isn't possible to answer. If by roughly uniform you mean that every combination of atoms has an equal probability of occurring, then the answer to your question is yes, but that is almost certainly not what you mean. Ultimately it comes down to whether the probability of an identical Earth existing in any arbitrary region of the universe is positive. If it is, then the answer to your question is yes, assuming of course that your assumption about the universe being infinite also holds true.

By the way, this question reminds me of the concept of normal numbers.
--- 15354425
>>15352284 (OP)
All evidence points towards the universe having a finite amount of matter in it. (Otherwise, among other things, there'd be no space between the matter, nor lack of uniformity in the CMB, nor would acceleration of expansion outstrip gravity.)

But if there were an infinite amount of matter you wouldn't have any Earths to repeat, just a singularity.
--- 15354504
>>15354425

I believe all those things are explained by dark matter...
--- 15354544
>>15354504
Dark matter is nonbaryonic matter that ADDS more gravity to the mix, it doesn't subtract from it. You maybe thinking of dark energy, but that arises from a vacuum state you simply don't have with infinite matter.
--- 15354665
how can there be finite matter in an infinite universe if the big bang happened everywhere at the same time?
--- 15354686
>>15352284 (OP)
Well that's because the universe is finite, not infinite and a majority of "science" especially when it comes to nonsense like astrophysics and quantum physics is quite literally just science fiction larp that has no basis on how people's day to day lives function. In other words, you got swindled.
--- 15354696
I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!! 
MY IQ IS SO BIG OMG!!!
NO, I AM NOT A MENTAL CASE WITH SEVERE DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR, I REALLY DO KNOW EVERYTHING 
I'M LIKE GOD, TRUST ME
BUT ALSO I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, WHAT A STUPID STORY RIGHT!?!?
NOBODY COULD EVER BE SMARTER THAN ME
--- 15354725
>>15352284 (OP)
>What am I missing????
The number of elements to this earth is also infinite, so the answer is no. For one, the sky will be always different, and sky does influence the earth. But if you lower your expectations, and recognize any planet with similar gravity and similar concentrations in the atmosphere, and similar radiation level, then the answer is yes, earth-like planets are not that rare.
--- 15354781
>>15354725

no , I'm talking equal down to each quantum state
--- 15354786
>>15354725
Dumbest post ITT. Incredible.
--- 15354859
>>15353691
Everything you said is fine man
--- 15354874
>>15354781
infinite monkeys
--- 15354878
>>15352715
This is seriously flawed logic. From your logic of a finite number of permutations, it does follow from the pigeonhole principle that at least one such permutation must repeat itself in an infinite space. It does NOT follow that every possible permutation repeats. For example, it could be that outside the bounds of the observable universe there is nothing but emptiness, no matter at all. 

By the way we're both using the word permutation wrong but who cares.
--- 15355100
>>15354878

>bounds of the observable universe there is nothing but emptiness,

but an observer 80 billion light years away would have their own observable universe as big as ours
--- 15355177
>>15354696
lol
spacefags are the cringiest of all the cringe in science, even lower than mathtrannys
--- 15355520
>>15354781
Then I doubt there's another earth out there, even in the infinite space, because the infinite complexity of this world is an infinity of a larger order than the infinity of the unlimited space.
--- 15355527
>>15354878
It's very counterintuitive so I understand your frustration. It's not that the possibility -- somehow independent of the following considerations -- is 1, it's that the limit of it approaches 1, as we have an infinite series of such finite volumes. The hard part to accept is that this is mathematically equal to 1.
>>15354134
Yes, this is correct. It's not, inherently, bound to happen. But you also need a reason to reject the claim that it can not happen. Or in other words, you need to come up with an explanation why it (repetition) shouldn't happen. For example, one such explanation would be that "event A" happens when our observable universe is perfectly mirrored, so that it collapses into a black hole. You need something like that. 
Besides, we are not even interested in all *possible* permutations, but only one -- and as it happens, this one permutation is absolutely physically viable. If anything, the likelihood that our volume of space repeats at least once (= i.e. infinitely) is *higher* than any possible random arrangement of matter or at least galaxies and stars.
--- 15355754
>>15355520

the arrangement of atoms of earth is not infinitely complex...
--- 15355770
infinity is a dumb concept, by it's nature it appeals strongly to those with delusions of grandiosity and nobody else
--- 15355777
>>15355754
It is infinitely complex, because the exact position of each atom can have infinite ammount of position, if you demand the ABSOLUTE exactness. Also don't forget the radiation from the space, of which each point inn the universe has different picture.
--- 15355780
>>15355770
the concept of infinity scares the midwits
--- 15355787
>>15355777
>retard doesn't understand degrees of freedom
--- 15355792
>>15355787
>retard doesn't understand the absolutes
--- 15355794
>>15355792
>retard still posting
Consneed and I will spare you
--- 15355803
navel gazing thread for pretentious know-it-alls who mysteriously know everything about the universe but can't see to make anything of themselves here on earth.
--- 15356678
>>15354665
The say it did because space didn't exist at the same time with the energy. The bang in big bang was space being created for the energy to cool down into the particles we see today. It touched everywhere because every where was pretty close at the time.
--- 15356822
>>15352284 (OP)
Yes, if the universe is infinite, there are infinite replicas of earths with identical species, even identical histories. The chances of that happening right next to us is in the realms of 10^10^10… But as long as there is a chance of that happening, it probably happens, or will happen, or did happen somewhere in the endless universe.
--- 15356826
>>15355527
>It's very counterintuitive so I understand your frustration. It's not that the possibility -- somehow independent of the following considerations -- is 1, it's that the limit of it approaches 1, as we have an infinite series of such finite volumes. The hard part to accept is that this is mathematically equal to 1.
Wow, you have an extremely condescending style despite the fact that you are also an idiot.

I'm not going to give you a detailed response because you don't deserve it. All I will say is this: "if something is infinite it must include every possibility" is every midwit's favourite misunderstanding of infinity. The simple counterargument is this: there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2, but it doesn't include the number 3. If there is infinite space in the universe, that doesn't mean every possible combination of atoms is contained therein.
--- 15356832
>>15355100
Impossible to know for sure. We can not make any statements about things we can not observe or measure. What exists outside the observable universe is unknown.
--- 15356837
>>15356782
You should have at least one argument. This is eminently doable. Insults just make you sound like a screeching schizo.

You can start by trying to disprove my claim (which is part of a rather elementary undergrad and even high school math curriculum) that an infinite series approaching a limit of 1, is mathematically equal to 1. Of course, as we have defined 1 to be the probability that it repeats.

You can use this article as the starting off point for your middle-school transcending math education:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)

I see in the meantime, you have tried to substantiate your claim, with you likely about to shamefully delete your original merely insults-containing post.

>>15356816
>I'm not going to give you a detailed response because you don't deserve it.
Why do you sound as if I personally hurt you? Don't come on 4chan and let your frustration out on me just because your blue-collar job has made you frustrated,
>All I will say is this: "if something is infinite it must include every possibility" is every midwit's favourite misunderstanding of infinity. The simple counterargument is this: there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2, but it doesn't include the number 3. If there is infinite space in the universe, that doesn't mean every possible combination of atoms is contained therein.
This is an analogy, and an unfitting one. As said in my post here >>15355527
>>15355527, you need to provide a reason why it can't repeat. Do you understand what my point is that in a finite volume (such as the observable volume), there can only be a limited number of arrangements of particles? As such, every further such volume increases the chance that a copy occurs. This just follows from basic induction. The number of further such chances is infinite.

Anyway, maybe you are more receptive to a pop, dumbed down treatment of this matter: https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf
--- 15356841
>>15356837
Fuck, I was hoping nobody would notice I deleted and rewrote my post twice :(
--- 15356901
>>15356837
Yeah I skimread this entire post and you're a complete idiot, probably no educational background in mathematics or logic whatsoever. Despite this you are convinced you are a genius and that you must talk down to everyone else on /sci/. I have a degree in mathematics so I actually understand the concept of infinity, there's no point trying to have a debate with you when you're essentially a child compared to me.
--- 15357473
>>15356901
>Despite this you are convinced you are a genius
This is the embarrassing part: I don't. I just find my IQ delightfully high-but-unremarkable (mid 130s). The thing is, you may have read the papers that suggest that people with 30 IQ difference essentially find no common ground in discourse anymore. Well, this is precisely what is happening here.
>I have a degree in mathematics
No you have not.
>so I actually understand the concept of infinity
Your one example where you tried to elaborate your conception of it, you floundered and embarrassed yourself by picking an ill-advised invalid example. And let me restate that this still was your one angle of attack. We still have no idea what your precise issue or argument. You are acting not quite unlike a chimp shitting himself in his plexiglass enclosure and flinging his shit everywhere, but refuses to elaborate. How about the pop PDF I linked that contains the explanation? Was it still above your level?
Have you taken an Algorithms and Probability course in your fictitious math education?
--- 15357802
>>15357473
Okay, I see now that you're an ESL. Probably a pajeet which would explain a lot about your attitude.
--- 15357827
>>15357473
My first reply to you was in good faith, I politely explained the flaw in your logic. You chose to:
1. reply like a condescending asshole
2. ignore everything I wrote in my post, most likely because you weren't able to understand it

You started the discussion by assuming that you're right and anyone who disagrees with you simply doesn't understand what you're saying. That doesn't make for a conductive debate, and I'm not going to bother trying to explain it in a different way because you still won't understand. Read this post >>15354878 carefully (as carefully as is possible for an ESL like you) and try to figure out what I'm saying. Hopefully you'll figure it out eventually.