Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger
If it doesn't then we are in a finite universe as Charvel has stated, not an infinite one.
What I would like to know is if infinity doesn't exist why would you as a mathematician multiply something by it?
You are funny! Where in any of my posts have I stated that I want or I would like or I believe I live in an infinite universe? (I'll leave that up to one of my or your selves!  )
We can only know what we can observe; I doubt that neither you nor I will live long enough to find out the answer.
There are men called scientist that are much more intelligent than either me or yourselves that think about how the universe is made. Some of these BIG thinkers are as we type having the same debate, neither group will determine the answer, neither will we with any certainty!
Cheers! |
Actually I agree with what you say about observation - I am simply pointing out that an infinite universe does NOT imply that every possibility is actualised. This just incorrect logic and mathematics.
(Which I think I might be able to demonstrate in another way which avoids having to multiply be infinity....
Suppose that we agree that, if we go to any other single solar system, the probability of finding "unreasonable" and "Skoshi Toger" debating the universe is less than 1.00 - lets say it is 0.10
Then we go to the first solar system we come to and look. The probability of NOT finding the debaters is 0.90 so let us assume we do not find them.
We go to the next planet - the probability is again 0.90
So from the beginning the probability of NOT finding the debaters on any planet of the first two is 0.90 x 0.90 = 0.81
We can continue this process infinitely - 0.90x0.90x0.90 etc
The point is that while the product approaches zero, it never actually reaches zero. So we can never be 100% certain that we will find the debaters. So the argument that an infinite universe must necessarily contain every possibility fails.)
As for the BIG THINKERS - I went to university with many of these scientists (in fact I started out as one myself) and I can assure you that hardly any of them are much more intelligent than you or I, and even the best of them are just as prone to poor reasoning and category mistakes as anyone else when they step away from their narrow fields of enquiry. Stephen Hawking for instance is a famously lousy philospher despite having a brain the size of a planet. He is wasted on physics - we should kidnap him and put him to work on CloD's AI!