The universe is not by chance

[Kyrisch]

What you are talking about is infinite precision; that is not the same as infinite information. You are correct in that in order to represent a sine wave or a perfect circle digitally, you need infinite precision. But both numbers and the universe are analog. We can use the fact that numbers themselves are infinite (there is an infinite amount of distinct numbers and there are an infinite amount of numbers between any two distinct numbers) to overcome this problem and represent such things symbolically. The formula x^2 + y^2 = 1 is the exact formula for a circle of radius 1. Given a right triangle with the angle opposite the longest side a, the ratio of the other two sides is exactly equal to the sine of angle a as a varies.

Quantum superposition and the other "analog" aspects of the information contained within the hypothetical box surrounding your person can be represented as such. There is still only a finite amount of information contained therein.

Of course, what you're saying also contradicts most physics. Information conservation is a tentatively held theory that makes intuitive sense. But it also means that the information density of the universe cannot be infinite or else it would just be vacuously true.

[tar]

Kyrisch,

I am not thinking that I agree with Dembsky's approach, which I read about googling information conservation. But I do think, that "information" is something we should between us, get a handle on, in terms of what we are talking about. I am sure great minds, much greater than mine, have wrestled with the calculations and determined that the universe is a closed system, consisting of a finite amount of information that could be described as a computer doing calculations. Don't follow it though. How did the program get written? How did the circuits get built? What is the processor? Makes no sense to me. None at all. Some mathematicians dream. Does not fit reality.

Getting back to two points. One, symbols of reality, are not reality. Two, when you flesh out an equation, like x squared plus y squared equals one, you have to plot it with an infinite amount of points.

If you were to write an equation, that exactly described our universe, let's say it is bounded, and finite in time and space, it would be longer than the universe itself. And not only would you have no source for the quantity of paper or circuitry to write it on, but when you finished, it would just be an equation, it would not operate as a universe does, nor would it be real. It would be a non functioning represention, a symbol, an imagined thing, that would not fit reality.

So your circle equation fails you in two ways. One it represents an infinite amount of points, and two, it doesn't really exist, it is just a representation of something symbolically created in your brain.

So what is this information, we are talking about? Why can we not see the complexity and wonder, and be a part of it. Why this need to control it, and be bigger and smarter than it?

Can't be done. Not in reality. We are of it, and in it, and cannot take an actual view, other than the one we already have been taking for the history of humanity.

I think it is the desire for immortality that drives the scientist to look for a way to encode his consciousness, and build a machine that would house it.

Funny thing is, it has already been done, and we did it. We are it. Life is that thing. We have it, till we die. And we can pass it on, by making it possible for others to exist, now, and later.

Regards, TAR

[Kyrisch]

You're so out there it is extremely frustrating to continue this debate with you. I will attempt to get back to the point of the thread. Here is my argument: it takes a finite amount of information to model something like a hydrogen atom. By extrapolation, you can model any finite subset of the physical universe with however complex but finite models. Following this, yourself represents a finite amount of information that exists in a metaphorical random number generator of immense proportions. You cannot say with any certainty that such a combination has never or will never exist.

[tar]

Kyrish,

But I have not agreed that a model contains the full information, the full reality of a physical thing. In fact, I suspect otherwise. There is more information than we know in that hydrogen atom.

If you model something, you don't have the thing, you have a model of it. It is a stripped down version, a representation, that need not fit reality in all its aspects.

Take a snowflake. It is arguable that there have never been two, exactly the same. Even if there were two that formed the exact branches to the same exact length containing the exact same number of atoms in the exact orientation to each other, there are other aspects that could be looked at, where there may be differences.

For instance, say the snowflake contains 1,800,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules. That would mean it has 3,600,000,000,000,000,000 hydrogen atoms. Deuterium, (where the nucleus of the hydrogen atom has a neutron as well as the normal proton) occurs in sea water about 156 times out of a million hydrogen atoms. That is 561,600,000,000,000 potential deuterium atoms in each of our so far exact snowflakes. What are the odds that each of our already difficult to imagine duplicates has exactly the same number of deuterium atoms? Astronomical odds. Impossible odds. It couldn't happen. And even if you say there is enough snowflakes in the universe, brewed up in an atmosphere with a similar 156ppm ratio for deuterium (which isn't that likely) on a planet with roughly our temperature and pressure to allow for the same crystal growth, to allow for two snowflakes with the same shape, and the same number of deuterium atoms, what are the odds that they are each in exactly the same place in the structure, in both snowflakes? Impossible. Just one out of place, ruins the exactness. One molecule sublimes, and the pair is ruined. One branch adds another molecule, and the pair no longer matches. And that is just a few aspects of a snowflake we are considering. How about the energy level of each of the electrons in each of the atoms of each of the snowflakes, or where each of the electrons is, in its orbit around the nucleus of its atom? There is no way, you can model all the aspects of a snowflake with a number, of any size. Your model would not contain all the reality, all the aspects, all the relationships, all the information that a snowflake contains. You would have to be leaving something out. Something you didn't even know about a snowflake would be missing from your model. I am sure you would fail to model some aspect and your model would be false. Perhaps the neutrino pressure, or the tachyon output, or the slight curve of an arm caused by the gravitational attraction of Cleveland.

And we are talking about a simple snowflake here. Not a TAR, or a Kyrisch.
Random number generator? Hogwash.

Regards, TAR

[Kyrisch]

Mar 3, 2010 3:42:12 GMT tar said:

But I have not agreed that a model contains the full information, the full reality of a physical thing. In fact, I suspect otherwise. There is more information than we know in that hydrogen atom.

But the information is finite! I'm not talking about scientific models constructed by human beings, I'm talking about information as abstract.

And the snowflake thing? It's not impossible, it's just inordinately improbable -- but you have no idea at what scales the universe operates. This could be universe number googolplex. There could be an infinite number of universes! Either way, you are in no position to make any such statement of uniqueness. You have literally no idea.

[tar]

Kyrisch,

But I do think am in a position to make a claim of uniqueness.

Consider this. If somewhere in your googleplex of universes, there is an exact replica of Earth, (which I think is not possible,) and its whole history, its every atom an quark, is exactly the same, there would remain an objective consideration that would make them not the same. Both Earth's, being real, would exist in an objective reality whose frame of reference would include both. This Earth, and that Earth, viewed from that frame of reference, would be either in difference places, or in different times, or both. Thus from that objective reference frame the godlike perceiver could point to this one, and then to that one. If this godlike entity would inform me of the presence of the other me, and inform the other me of my presence, and tell us both how to point in the other's direction, we, each of us TARs would be pointing in a different direction, proving that we each existed in a unique place and time, that we were different TARs and now that we pointed in disparate directions, no longer identical.

Regards, This unique TAR

[Kyrisch]

But that's completely pointless. You could say that every single fundamental particle is 'unique' in the same exact way. But that's clearly misleading. Electrons are electrons no matter where they are. If two things are exact copies of each other, even if they exist in two different places, they are still exact copies of each other and no longer unique.

The point is, if there were an exact copy of you, it would behave exactly the same. If there were another universe in which everything were exactly the same (thanks to the law of probability on large scales) he would have the same exact thoughts and personality as you. He would be you, just in some other place. I did not think that you considered your coordinate location to be part of who you are. You could just as well say you're a different person every time you move about which would in another way make the question of uniqueness moot. You'd simply never be unique by merit of definition, but you'd have to concede that you weren't yourself a minute ago.

[tar]

Kyrisch,

What is completely pointless is to talk about a universe other than this one, that intersects this universe in no way. Such a universe is a mental construction that has no more or less value than the thought of heaven, or of God, or of a resurection that will be 1000 times better than this existence. Such ideas have value to us, but as I have been want to point out, there is a sameness about your images of another universe and a non atheists visions of heaven.

But back to this identical TAR. An electron is deemed interchangable with any other electron. We find no difference in characteristics between them, besides their position and momentum.
Atoms are different things, and we find many different configurations that yield different characteristics, well beyond just a difference in position and momentum. Again though, one atom and another will sport all the same characteristics and could be interchanged and deemed identical. But then we have molecules that are arrangements of indential atoms, that sport new characteristics, and again the arrangements are differentiators. On through minerals and mountains, and continental shelves, planets and solar systems, where finding a particular identical arrangement is more and more unlikely. And then to galaxies where even if you find another spiral galaxy, it is sure to be a little bigger, or have a few less stars, or some differently shaped arms. There is unlikely a galaxy within our observable universe that would match the Milky Way, star for star, much less planet for planet, mountain for mountain, rock for rock, mineral for mineral, molecule for molecule, atom for atom. Not only improbable. Down right impossible.

For your other TAR to be identical to me he would have to be able to look at the stars and see the same configuration, that I see. This can not happen. Not in this universe. This universe is a certain way from my perspective that can not be exactly reproduced, from any other.

Regards, TAR

[Kyrisch]

First, how the hell do you continue to cite highly improbable as 'down right impossible'? It's simply not correct. If the probability of something is nonzero, it is possible -- end of story.

And why are you continuing to use the 'perspective' argument? The universe is a certain way to a single electron, from its perspective, that cannot be exactly reproduced except by an electron in that very position. This can be said of literally anything. A cubic centimeter of empty space exhibits the same property. This is not a functional definition of uniqueness.

[tar]

The probability of there being an exact other TAR with the rest of the universe in the exact relationship that it is in, to this TAR, is ZERO.

[Kyrisch]

I can repeat my thesis emphatically too.

Unfortunately, the fact remains that you do not know how many universes there are. There could easily be another universe that is exactly the same as this one, and you would never know better. This is something that is simply unavoidable.

Let me add another facet to the argument. In quantum mechanics, such probabilistic events as the decay of an atom are truly random -- i.e. not deterministic. However, many follow a strict bell curve of probability. That is to say, that a specific percentage of the whole can be said to definitely decay after a certain period of time (this is where half-life comes from). According to the multiple worlds hypothesis (which is an unfalsifiable proposition), whenever the universe makes such a random quantum 'decision' it breaks into an infinite many branches, the proportions of which match the proportions of the distribution curve of probability of the outcome of the event. Since curves such as bell curves are infinitely extended, there must be an infinite number not only of branched universes but also of branches in which (for instance) the atom decayed. As such, after each quantum decision, and until the next one, there would be an infinite many universes in which there are identical TARs.

And I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying it's possible. Therefore you cannot say what you are saying with any certainty. That has been my position from the beginning.

[tar]

Kyrisch,

Well OK but I can state something about this particular universe. There is a particular universe, that you have been in, since you were born, that is the same universe that I have been in since I was born, that coincides with the universe that every scientist that has ever lived on Earth has been studying since scientists started studying Earth. This is the only universe worth talking about, since it is the only one we have. If there are others that we can not ever know anything about, what use are they to us, how would they ever effect us, and in two words, "who cares."

I know there cannot be another TAR in this universe. I know this with certainty. Other universes can have in them what ever they please. It does not effect us in the least.

Regards, TAR

[Kyrisch]

You don't know how long this universe has been around, either. You don't know when the laws of determinism have been broken down and reinstated. You say TAR must be unique because of his cause-and-effect relationship radiating outward and touching, in some way, every fiber of this universe and the reciprocal relationship reaching back. But what if the Big Bang/Big Crunch cyclic theory is correct? What if every so many trillion years, everything breaks down again, determinism gives way to quantum probabilism, and there have been a million instances of TAR, one in each cycle?

Listen, the reason your argument is so easy to shoot down is because you simply do not have the knowledge necessary to make such a claim. Any number of random counter-theories, no matter how improbable, are possible -- as such, it is possible that you are wrong. Therefore, you cannot know with certainty.

Plus, at this point, you've defined TAR in such a way that there "cannot be another" in this universe. You've constructed the definition to fit your claim. At this point, your claim is almost tautological.

[tar]

Kyrisch,

Well I have thought about all that. Cyclical universes and such. And it is probably true. But a couple of points. One, the universe that emerges from the big crunch of the previous, is most likely different than that previous one. It has evolved from the previous, and whatever laws of physics, and materials and subtance and energy or whatever that exist in this one, are in a way a result of the previous. There is probably some analogous stuff going on, as with the distruction and creation of stars, where each successive generation of stars has heavier elements, because of the activities of the previous generation. So probably there was not a TAR in the last iteration of the universe, because the stuff required, was being created by the activities of the previous iteration and did not therefore exist yet.

Two, the genesis of this universe, and its demise, are both very very far removed from our present. We are insolated from both ends by its enormity. We can imagine its beginnings and end, but we cannot be there. Our present is somewhere between. Images of the past reach us long after they have occurred, and the future will occur long after we are dead.

It surprising to me that people talk of the universe as if it is all doing the same thing, at the same time. There is no vantage point, that can see the whole universe at the same age, at once.

Except God's, and we don't believe in God, so there is no vantage point that can do it.

Regards, TAR

[tar]

Consider the background microwave radiation. The areas of the universe that emmited that radiation, still exist, but are much farther away than the images would lead us to believe, because of the expansion of the universe, and those areas are now, just as old as the Milky Way's area is, in universal time from the big bang. We can never see those areas as the same age as us. Never.