How many Universes do we have?

[THoR]

To THoR

Question about existance - suppose we have a super computer that processes almost infinite number of operations per second. We create a program with totally same laws of nature' date=' properties etc with our Universe. Then we create singular point (or any other thing that actually created our Universe) in the program. Basically we are making an absolutely exact copy of our Universe. [/quote']

There's a vast difference between cyberspace and reality. Existence is the 'real thing', data and programs are simply the encoding of logical/mathematical functions and descriptive information.

Then we watch how galaxies, planets appear. Finally we can see scientists who are trying to explain existance of Universe... Can we count this "Universe" real? Do those people have intellegence? and what if we are too created by some "other-dimension computer"?

That comment I made about 'creation' holds for this scenario, also. It ain't logical.

And everything in our Universe is predetermined?

Within every existence there is a volume. A volume contains an INFINITE number of points. Each of those points may be considered a subquality - the nature of which contributes to the reaction of the whole; hence there are an INFINITE number of decisions made by the moments or parts within the whole to determine the outcome of any reaction. Infinite choice is randomness.

 

But if we are exact copy of the other universe which created us then eventually we will create a copy of our world too!

Perhaps what I said is philosophic thing but we can't answer this question only by science yet. Philosophers can only make hypotheses which will be later proved or denyed by scientists.

To administrator

Can we move this topic to the philosophy section?

The actual point in question is "How many Universes do we have?"

The answer depends on semantics.

I prefer to define Universe as all which exists - there is nothing more or else.

It may also (erroneously in my estimation) be defined as any set - ie. a subset such as the 'known' universe. This is sloppy definition. Words MEAN things and should have the same encription for everyone.

[Nacelunk]

There's a vast difference between cyberspace and reality. Existence is the 'real thing', data and programs are simply the encoding of logical/mathematical functions and descriptive information.

How do you know that we are not encoded of mathematical functions? If we can make them it doesn't mean that we are not one of them

I prefer to define Universe as all which exists - there is nothing more or else.

We can't say that exactly. I would call The World is everything that exist but not the Universe

[Klaynos]

How do you know that we are not encoded of mathematical functions? If we can make them it doesn't mean that we are not one of them

tbh if we are then there's no way we could know so it isn't important. Also there's no way we could build a computer that contains the same amount of information that is containted in the universe...

 

We can't say that exactly. I would call The World is everything that exist but not the Universe

Then you need to find a dictionary

[Nacelunk]

Then you need to find a dictionary

A dictionary can prove that there is nothing but our Universe?

[Nacelunk]

Also there's no way we could build a computer that contains the same amount of information that is containted in the universe...

Do you know how many information our universe contains?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's the slight problem that if you make a computer that holds as much information as the entire universe does, you've just doubled the amount of information in the universe and so your computer needs to hold even more information.

[Nacelunk]

you've just doubled the amount of information

I think my thoughts can change only amount of information in my brain

[Klaynos]

Well lets say that each subatomic particle has a possition associated with it, lets assume this is in cartesian coordinates for simplicity, and that there are only 3 subatomic particles in the universe. We also need to know the relationship between them all so we have to take into account information about the strength of the 4 fundemental forces for each one, so again lets say for each of these 7 things that a single hex digit can be assigned to them, (that's a single byte of information). This gives us 56 bit's of data that has to be known about each of the 3 particles this is 168 bit's. Please explain to me how we encode 168 bits of data onto 3 particles?

 

universe

 

n 1: everything that exists anywhere; "they study the evolution of the universe"; "the biggest tree in existence"

 

So if it exists it's in our universe... if it doesn't exist it doesn't. If we find something that we can get to by travelling through a wormhole, that's still our universe... If we create a world inside a computer, that's still our universe... It is everything... [semantics I know but I'm bored]

[Nacelunk]

To Klaynos

My main question was - Are you agree with me that universe appeared from nothing and with no reason?

[Royston]

Going back to the OP, have a read of the points raised in this thread Nacelunk...I pretty much raise the same questions you have (apart from cause) which I think you may find interesting. I'm not sure of the current strength of LQG and LQC, but nevertheless I'm sure you'll find it useful.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15535&highlight=lqg+lqc

[aguy2]

is the phenomenon of being the result of a process. Is it the product of cause and effect?

 

I would go with 'process' to the extent that I would say that states of 'being' are only hypothetical, and that in reality we only observe states of 'becoming'.

 

The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the beginning of time a transformation must have occurred which brought forth the material manifestation of the cosmos.

 

I believe "no thing = nothing" and have been using the term "still/void" as a possible uncreated precursor to the 4 dimensional world we experience, but I don't think that 'time' is the 4th dimension. If we were to consider the initial condition of the universe to be a 1 dimensional singularity of 'depth', if this 1 dimensional condition is to 'change' into a multi-dimensional condition, then 'time' would of necessity have to be at least the 2nd dimension, if not the first.

 

The process of change is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. Conditions or states of being change during the process of cause and effect. But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a function of existence. This is, of course, the antithesis of the premise that existence is a function of cause and effect - the product of creation.

 

If the observed states of 'becoming' are substitued for the unobserved, hypothetical states of 'being', would the 'problem' you have posed disappear?

aguy2

[THoR]

I would go with 'process' to the extent that I would say that states of 'being' are only hypothetical' date=' and that in reality we only observe states of 'becoming'.

[/quote'] There are two basic phenomena in reality

1) Existence - either something IS or it ISN'T - anything >Ø would be IS

2) Change - alteration of the 'state of existence' or condition

Only that which 'exists' can change or be changed.

I believe "no thing = nothing" and have been using the term "still/void" as a possible uncreated precursor to the 4 dimensional world we experience, but I don't think that 'time' is the 4th dimension. If we were to consider the initial condition of the universe to be a 1 dimensional singularity of 'depth', if this 1 dimensional condition is to 'change' into a multi-dimensional condition, then 'time' would of necessity have to be at least the 2nd dimension, if not the first.

Semantically, 'Nothing' has two connotations :

'Nothing(L)' (in logical terms) is the null set - represented by the symbol 'Ø'.

'Nothing(A)' (in the abstract) is 'that which does not exist'.

 

But, 'that which does not exist' does not exist. It is not the empty set. It is not a set at all. It has no properties or attributes.

 

To consider 'Nothing(A)' would be not to consider.

To perceive 'Nothing(A)' would be not to perceive.

To understand 'Nothing(A)' would be not to understand.

 

Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space. Logic requires definition. 'Nothing' - in the abstract context - is undefined, it does not exist, it is a fiction which has no physical manifestation in the Universe.

 

Within the realm of logic 'Nothing' isn't 'non-existence', it is the existence of the null set - the value of 'Ø'

 

If the observed states of 'becoming' are substitued for the unobserved, hypothetical states of 'being', would the 'problem' you have posed disappear?

aguy2

Plez explain unobserved, hypothetical states

[aguy2]

There are two basic phenomena in reality

1) Existence - either something IS or it ISN'T - anything >Ø would be IS

2) Change - alteration of the 'state of existence' or condition

Only that which 'exists' can change or be changed.

 

Semantically' date=' 'Nothing' has two connotations :

'Nothing(L)' (in logical terms) is the null set - represented by the symbol 'Ø'.

'Nothing(A)' (in the abstract) is 'that which does not exist'.

 

But, 'that which does not exist' does not exist. It is not the empty set. It is not a set at all. It has no properties or attributes.

 

To consider 'Nothing(A)' would be not to consider.

To perceive 'Nothing(A)' would be not to perceive.

To understand 'Nothing(A)' would be not to understand.

 

Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space. Logic requires definition. 'Nothing' - in the abstract context - is undefined, it does not exist, it is a fiction which has no physical manifestation in the Universe.

 

Within the realm of logic 'Nothing' isn't 'non-existence', it is the existence of the null set - the value of 'Ø'[/quote']

 

You seem to be saying that 'logic's nothing' = a null set.

I would prefer 'still/void' = a null set, but can settle on 'null set'.

Is that ok with you?

 

Plez explain unobserved, hypothetical states

Is this a question?

aguy2

[THoR]

You seem to be saying that 'logic's nothing' = a null set.

I would prefer 'still/void' = a null set' date=' but can settle on 'null set'.

Is that ok with you?[/quote']

Most laymen consider space a void. It isn't, of course - it is FULL of space.

Semantics is quite a problem in trying to explain the physical and metaphysical

Is this a question?

aguy2

As far as I can determine, 'being' is neither an unobserved nor hypothetical state. It is the ultimate reality. I must be misunderstanding your meaning here...of course I can also get lost in a walk in closet

[aguy2]

As far as I can determine' date=' 'being' is neither an unobserved nor hypothetical state. It is the ultimate reality. I must be misunderstanding your meaning here...of course I can also get lost in a walk in closet [/quote']

 

My contention that states of 'being' can only be hypothetical is based, in part, on the fact that due to the finite intervals of time necessary for information to be transmitted and processed, we have never observed anything as it is, at best we have only observed things as they where. IOW we have never directly 'observed' a state of being, thus their existence can only be 'hypothetical'.

 

I also contend that there is no such problem if we veiw reality as, "Processes that happen to have 'things' in them." and not as, "Things that happen to be involved in processes."

aguy2

[pink_trike]

No matter how many explainations you have for everything, stuff will still have to just exist.

 

That would depend entirely on how you define "exist". What we call matter is dynamic and interdependent in nature. Does something that is dynamic and interdependent really exist? gross example: does a cloud exist?

 

 

[THoR]

My contention that states of 'being' can only be hypothetical is based, in part, on the fact that due to the finite intervals of time necessary for information to be transmitted and processed, we have never observed anything as it is, at best we have only observed things as they where. IOW we have never directly 'observed' a state of being, thus their existence can only be 'hypothetical'.

I agree that observations lag reality to some extent and as far as 3rd party 'beings' are concerned, I can see your point; however, there is YOUR 1st party 'being' - the experience of which is instantaneous and very much observed.

I also contend that there is no such problem if we veiw reality as, "Processes that happen to have 'things' in them." and not as, "Things that happen to be involved in processes."

aguy2

Do "things" not act and react? Is space not a "thing" i.e. does - thingness=mass

[THoR]

That would depend entirely on how you define "exist". What we call matter is dynamic and interdependent in nature. Does something that is dynamic and interdependent really exist? gross example: does a cloud exist?

EXIST: To have physical presence in the Universe

[aguy2]

I agree that observations lag reality to some extent and as far as 3rd party 'beings' are concerned, I can see your point; however, there is YOUR 1st party 'being' - the experience of which is instantaneous and very much observed.

 

I would agree that I experience a sense of 'me-ness' that seems to meet many, if not all, the requirements of something that exists in a state of 'being', but even here I am certainly not the same man I was 40 years ago. Physically, emotionally, and intellectually I have been involved in a continuous process of 'becoming'. I can even see a somewhat different 'me' of 40 minutes ago, when that 'me' was not thinking or feeling that it was getting about lunch time.

 

I took a quick peek at your profile, and although I don't want to appear presumtuous, I could easily guess that at least one of the reasons you are here in this forum is to avoid intellectual stagnation.

 

Do "things" not act and react? Is space not a "thing" i.e. does - thingness=mass

In general I would agree that time/space can be considered a 'thing'. I would even go so far as to say that time/space may be seen as a conserved system. Would you be interested in seeing why I think it can be shown that time/space might be concidered a 'conserved system'?

aguy2

 

Ps. I just got back from a week of camping and hiking in "Big Bend National Park" is this anywhere near you?

[Moonquake]

That would depend entirely on how you define "exist".

 

By what sensible deffinition of 'exist' does nothing exist?

[Moonquake]

Where is the difference between what I said

and you did

All I was suggesting is that the universe didn't appear. You were saying that it did. The only point I made therefore differs completely.

 

Sorry' date=' I did not find an off topic button

[/quote']

I was trying to offend your whole "we only use 10% of our brains" thing, but forget it.

[THoR]

I would agree that I experience a sense of 'me-ness' that seems to meet many, if not all, the requirements of something that exists in a state of 'being', but even here I am certainly not the same man I was 40 years ago. Physically, emotionally, and intellectually I have been involved in a continuous process of 'becoming'. I can even see a somewhat different 'me' of 40 minutes ago, when that 'me' was not thinking or feeling that it was getting about lunch time.

That is the difference between "state of being" and being, itself. "Being" is a yes or no proposition (anything >Ø is 'yes'), but condition can have infinite shades of difference.

I took a quick peek at your profile, and although I don't want to appear presumtuous, I could easily guess that at least one of the reasons you are here in this forum is to avoid intellectual stagnation.

Too late, the old "mind" atrophied decades ago...but thanks for the thought.

In general I would agree that time/space can be considered a 'thing'. I would even go so far as to say that time/space may be seen as a conserved system. Would you be interested in seeing why I think it can be shown that time/space might be concidered a 'conserved system'?

aguy2

OK, I'll bite...

 

Ps. I just got back from a week of camping and hiking in "Big Bend National Park" is this anywhere near you?

Yeah, it's only 750 miles from here (Deep South Texas, the southern part - just south of Combes, TX - population 751). In Texas, that's just around the corner.

[THoR]

By what sensible deffinition of 'exist' does nothing[/b'] exist?

Consider the fractions 1/2 and 1/99^999,999,999,999,999 . As the denominator of a fraction increases, its value decreases. Though infinity is undefined and cannot be represented by a value, it is obvious that if the numerator of a fraction is finite, then regardless how large that numerator may be, the ratio of any finite quantitative value compared to infinity is Ø.

 

Using any given point in space as an X,Y,Z axis, one may theoretically extend equidistant lines to infinity throughout the spectrum of polar coordinates. The procedure inscribes a sphere which theoretically encompasses the Universe. By definition, the selected point is the center of that sphere - and the center of the Universe. Since the same can be done for all points in the Universe, every point in the cosmos is its center.

 

If every quality has a reciprocal (opposite equivalent), then from the point of view of an infinite Universe, all quantitative, qualitative and dimensional values vanish to 'Nothing'.

[Moonquake]

That doesn't look like a deffinition of 'exist'.

[Nacelunk]

All I was suggesting is that the universe didn't appear.

You mean it always existed?