You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Trevor_Blake comments on Stupid questions thread, October 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: philh 13 October 2015 07:39PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (223)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 13 October 2015 09:53:16PM 2 points [-]

In an infinite universe is it not the case that all possibilities have at least one instance where their probability is equal to one?

Comment author: Baughn 13 October 2015 11:43:58PM *  5 points [-]

Maybe.

Determining which possibilities this is false for in our particular universe would take some time, and depends on the exact form of the laws of physics (which we don't know), so let's use a simplified example.

Take the Game of Life. While simple, it is in fact turing-complete; this was demonstrated by implementing a turing machine on it, which is the best way to demonstrate that sort of thing. (It's fun to put one cell out of place and watch it disintegrate.)

Take an infinitely large game of life. Start it in a random state, and leave it to evolve for an infinite amount of time. As you'd expect, a lot of things happen; in a universe that large, you will indeed see, for example, all possible simulations of Earth. So in that sense, "all things happen"...

But there are some states of the world which you will never see, no matter how long you wait. These are called Garden of Eden states.

There's a very good chance that there are also garden of eden states for this universe. They're likely to be states such as "The universe is tiled with a mandelbrot pattern of black holes"; states which are simply so unstable that they cannot naturally arise. There may also be less exotic states of that sort, but I feel less secure about claiming that...

And the Garden of Eden theorem, if it is applicable to our universe, states that it has Garden of Eden states of and only if time is non-reversible. As physics does indeed appear to be time-reversible, that's a bit of a problem. However, I don't know how applicable it is to our non-cellular physics.

Comment author: MrMind 14 October 2015 07:25:03AM *  0 points [-]

Not necessarily. It pretty much depends on dynamics laws of the universe: you can have states that are consistently and forever missed. There are theorems for the eternal returns in both general relativity and quantum physics, that elucidate these questions.

Comment author: pianoforte611 14 October 2015 03:44:48AM *  0 points [-]

Isn't it pretty established that the universe is not infinite?

In any case, I don't think so. Even in an infinite universe there is the possibility of loops or repetitions. Also you can have an infinite but not comprehensive set of events even if those events are all unique.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 14 October 2015 01:20:03PM 0 points [-]

It hasn't been established that the universe is not infinite, and in fact it seems to be the more common opinion that it probably is.

Comment author: pianoforte611 14 October 2015 02:12:31PM 1 point [-]

I didn't know that the Big Bang was compatible with an infinite universe, I learned something today.