|
 |
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraz net> wrote:
> Snort. But you are proving his point. In any infinite universe in which
> "every" combination possible doesn't exist, then some combinations
> **must** be identical.
Well, if we have an infinite amount of singularities, I wouldn't call
them "parallel universes", even though they are all identical to each
other (except for mass, rotation and electric charge).
Also, if we have, for example, an infinite amount of evenly-distributed
hydrogen (or dark matter, or dark energy, or anything) I also wouldn't call
that "parallel universes".
> Worse, if you have infinite mass, but finite
> numbers of ways it can combine, then there **must** be instances where
> some large number of duplications exist.
Duplication can be trivial. It's enough to have an infinite amount of
evenly-distributed mass (or just energy).
But anyways, as pointed out, if there was an infinite amount of mass
in the Universe, the Schwarzschild radius of the Universe would also
be infinite, which would mean that the entire Universe is a black hole,
which is clearly not the case. (Black holes have all kinds of funny
features which clearly don't happen in this universe. For example, all
geodesics would point to the singularity and there's no way to avoid
everything going there. Even timelines go to the singularity, so just
advancing in time makes everything go to the singularity.)
> Or, to put it in terms that one cartoon did, just because an infinite
> number of monkeys, typing randomly or otherwise, on an infinite number
> of type writers, might never reproduce Shakespeare, that doesn't mean
> they wouldn't reproduce Terry Pratchett instead. Your setting an
> artificial standard from the beginning, implying that one improbable
> solution doesn't have to happen. Its way different than saying that
> **no** improbable solution will ever happen.
I have never said that it cannot happen. I just oppose the claim that
something will inevitably happen.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
