Have you ever heard someone say "Perhaps there are an infinite number of universes in which every single possibility comes true"?
Did you ever think about what that means?
Suppose you have a child you love with all your heart and soul. In THIS universe. According to the theory, there are multiple other universes in which you neglect, abuse, or murder your child. There's one where you toss your child over a cliff and one where you pour gasoline on them and light them on fire.
It would seem to follow with necessity from the "every single possibility" theory.
If you don't have a child, think of your spouse, your pet, your parents, or your best friend.
Of course there are universes where bad things are happening to you as well.
Have you ever thought of this before?
Is there any way to escape these seemingly necessary conclusions?
Do you still believe in the infinite universes concept?
By finite, I simply mean limited. Truth is relative to its subject, but not limited to it in comparison to other subjects.
I was asking for what you meant by an infinite understanding of infinity and your response doesn't make me feel I'm much closer to it.
Although there is no physical conflict, I believe that we create this idea of a "mind" which we believe is all-knowing and all-powerful, which is both untrue and stupid.
Do you mean God's mind? I ask because I don't think I know anyhone who believes a human mind is all-knowing or all-powerful. If it's God's mind you're referring to, there is no "we," because I'm an atheist.
I am simply suggesting, let us start with point "a" and end with point "z", shall we? B-Y are simple bridges, and last time I checked, we cannot jump any letters or else we'd have a faulty bridge, hmm?
Can you put that in non-alphabetic terms, as in describing the specific thought processes you disagree with so that I can see where you think people go off the rails?
Keep your pants on, mate! No reason to be upset. I did not mention nor imply that I disagree with a multi-universe theory,...
And I have never said I agree with it (don't be fooled into thinking so if you seem to find me defending it: I believe a dialectic is important to ultimately arriving at the truth, and I can take either side if I feel it keeps people thinking on their feet).
I just simply suggested we may not wish to put the cart before the horse. A table is no table without legs.
What other things would you apply this principle to? Dark matter and energy? a molten metal core to the planet? vaccinationi?
Ah, I am quite used to conversation using vocalization in person or over the phone more than I am used to typing on the internet! It is very easy to take things wrong over technology. Allow me to expound upon my above statements to clear up any confusions about my own person beliefs. I appreciate the basic outline you made. It will make it much more simplistic for me to be able to respond accurately without confusion! I apologize for anything written in a way that seemed presented differently than what I am about to type below.
"I was asking for what you meant by an infinite understanding of infinity and your response doesn't make me feel I'm much closer to it."
What I simply was suggesting that even aside from religion, we as human beings (not of any preference of religion, or lack thereof) have created an idea of "ego". Does ego truly exist aside from chemical components being released in our brains, allowing us to feel good about ourselves after sex, eating certain foods, smoking a good old fashioned joint? I believe not. I believe there is no ego, but rather a simple brain which can quite often be misconstrued by our understanding or, lack thereof. Mirror atoms would be a decent example of how our brains can re-enact something which has happened to someone else, and create a sensation in which it is easy to believe the same exact thing is happening to us. But we often forget that a mirror does not show us a different, secondary physical body, only a mere reflection. Infinite understanding does not exist, for infinite existence does not either, at least not to homo sapiens or others of the animal kingdom. If we all have been born, we all too will die; even over time we adapt to new environments, changing our biological anatomy very slightly. Infinite is defined as,"limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate." The human body has limits, or we wouldn't die. We are not endless in space or we would live forever. Our life is only extended to the extreme in which we treat our bodies (whether we eat right, or have survived biological genomes passed down from ancestors which sometimes contains cancer, crohn's, other diseases, mutations, etc.). We clearly have a size, which does indeed change over time, but once again, we still die and decompose, thus it is not ever (infinitely)-growing. And the human body on a biological level is very measurable, and very calculable. Therefore, there is not "infinite" anything here in our bodies. We have finite bodies which live and die, in a simplistic sense. Does this answer your question?
"Do you mean God's mind? I ask because I don't think I know anyhone who believes a human mind is all-knowing or all-powerful. If it's God's mind you're referring to, there is no "we," because I'm an atheist."
I actually answered your question inside of my statement "I believe that we create this idea of a "mind" which we believe is all-knowing and all-powerful, which is both untrue and stupid." I am literally talking about the human's idea of a mind, that we literally have a separate entity which is apart of ourselves outside of the human brain's logical capabilities. For example, as I said above, the ego does not exist, but we as human beings many times believe it does (We get carried away in it, or we wouldn't feel the need to do so many stupid things; we are not logical all of the time). This is not in a spiritual sense, but I am literally talking about someone who is "carried away with themselves", swept up in their own ideologies and absolutely unwilling to think outside of the box through skepticism. That is pride. That is arrogance. Sometimes, that is fear. All of which are very irrational, and quite simply labels upon which we put on certain physical sensations we feel in our bodies in which we call "emotions". I am an atheist as well. Thus, I believe in no God, nor any spiritual part of the human body. It is not even slightly possible for me to wrap my head around any of that, because I have too much proof of black-and-white, logical, scientific and literal things in which have convinced me there most certainly is no creator, and we most certainly haven't created ourselves through a "mind" of our own. There is no mind. There is a brain. And the brain is a fascinating subject. I can still continue to expound upon this if necessary...
"Can you put that in non-alphabetic terms, as in describing the specific thought processes you disagree with so that I can see where you think people go off the rails?"
Of course I can come up with an example of some sort. Let us take religion for instance. Richard Dawkins has a wonderful analogy of the "God of the gaps". So many people assume that when there are unanswered things in science, God must then fill those gaps. Ha! It's terrible getting into an argument with a life-long gap-follower. Basically, so many people assume that "Z" must be "Z" when we've not even discovered the method on how to get there. If we have not seen it, it may not exist! But many Christians believe what they believe because they have simply been told, "Oh yes, Z definitely exists. i just know it does...through faith...and prayer..." So for me, I believe there must be a methodical and scientific approach to everything in order to fully understand how one gets from point A to point Z. Gaps create delusion when filled with ideas, but when tested and slowly observed, we can get to Z without even making up an idea about unicorns or bearded angry men in the sky, striking us down with lightning bolts! Once again, I can expound using other examples. I have a longing to be challenged upon what I believe, for it typically reaffirms why I believe what I believe, anyway. Moving right along!
"And I have never said I agree with it (don't be fooled into thinking so if you seem to find me defending it: I believe a dialectic is important to ultimately arriving at the truth, and I can take either side if I feel it keeps people thinking on their feet)."
I believe this is simply misunderstanding. I clearly pointed no fingers here, but simply stated for my own defense that I did not mention or imply anything about a non-belief in this theory. I should have, however added that I also did not imply anything about an actual belief of this theory, either. For that, I apologize. I most certainly do not wish to ruffle any feathers.
"What other things would you apply this principle to? Dark matter and energy? a molten metal core to the planet? vaccination?"
And the final answer (for now at least): I could truly apply this principle to many different things. Anything from as you had mentioned, vaccination (for me this would be preparing for that which may not ever happen) to premature ejaculation (one must learn control the body! haha). The latter of course is more of a humorous approach. But I believe that we should never attempt to do something without the proper setting up of, as i stated before, methodical and scientific observation. Patience pays off, and I would rather "not know" temporarily than state that I "do know" via creation of a "god" or even, the human ego.
Hopefully this has answered your questions, and hopefully I have cleared up my above statements by more thoroughly explaining my reasoning behind it all. For some reason, I felt as if I was being chastised in some sort of way, but as I said once before, it is easy for misunderstandings to happen through the use of internet communication. Hopefully my balls are just being busted and I am being tested to see if I am truly an atheist, but if that is the case, I most certainly didn't leave religion, which claimed to know all, in order to come to atheism, just to be greeted by folks very religious about their non-religiousness trying to see if I am "the real deal". I am a human being first, and an atheist second. I greatly dislike labels, for the label doesn't make the person, but the person makes the label.
I am humble enough to admit that sometimes, I do not know. Admitting "I don't know" isn't a sign of weakness or stupidity; it is a statement which allows opportunities for education to arise. Therefore, I will definitely admit in this case about the multi-universe theory, that I do not know. Being someone who is going for his Phd in Astrophysics, this is something that is indeed fascinating to me. I just simply require a more methodical approach on finding something out. I do not know that there are multiple universes, but there are many physicists, as myself which are trying to discover more about these amazing mysteries. Although, I must say that explaining our galaxy here is much more important to me at the moment, for it is something that can easily be taught to those who still believe in a creator whom put us here on this earth from the rib of a man inserted into a woman. Quite strange. Much stranger than a multi-universe theory. Haha! Maybe this will clear things up. Once again, I am not going to admit that I know something that I simply do not yet know. Do I believe it is possible to know? Yes. Someday, 30-40 years down the road, I am sure we will have solved many of today's mysteries, and will have piled a full cart of new mysteries to solve in that era.
Have a good day! I assume we will be talking again soon. ;-)
That is one of the lengthiest comments I've ever seen here at TA.
One thing you'll quickly learn about me is that I'm unlikely to provide detailed replies (or even to reply at all) to extremely wordy comments. I really can't justify the time it would take to read through the above much less provide replies. There are many things I want to do that I'd have to give up to do so.
When I ask for clarification, I'm not asking for a lengthy exposition. Rather, I'm interested in a condensed and simplified exposition. I assume you'll be doing some teaching along the way to your PhD if you aren't already. Students appreciate the ability of their teachers to put their ideas into easily-digested images and phraseology.
Einstein is said to have attended a lecture by a fellow physicist. Afterward at the reception he went up to the lecturer and asked for a clarification of a particular point. "I can't really explain it easily; it's very complicated" was the reply. "Well," said Einstein, "If you can't put it into plain language, you don't really understand it yourself."
I'm further than ever from figuring out what we're talking about.
Let me ask this: If cosmology or some other science working at the fringes is doing something wrong, what is that in a nutshell?
Good advice. I could have simplified, but figured you wanted all of the minor and unnecessary details, also. Haha.
Well, in my opinion, the only thing done wrong with space exploration and the science cosmology is not necessarily something the sciences or the scientists of them are doing wrong, rather the lack of proper funding provided by the government for each. It is somewhat of a political issue, more so. I believe much more can be done efficiently if there were proper funding. So, i believe that efficiency is the only thing that needs to be increased. But no one is doing anything wrong, per-say.
Government(s) can finance research but it's not written in the sky that scientific research must enjoy government subsidy.
I'm not sure that what's standing between knowing if there is a multiverse is money.
I mean, consider that Einstein's breakthroughs were done in his spare time (or time stolen from the Swiss patent office) rather than through government funded research.
The breakthrough that proves or disproves the existence of a multiverse is far more likely to be a moment of individual insight rather than a gadget or project.
I have back into this 'problem' many times. Several years ago I wrote a monograph of Fractal Geometry for submission to the OSU library, because at the time there was little writen about it. Over the course of a few months it became clear to me that much of the available literature was nearly opague, with constant references to '1/2' spaces, et-all.
Finally I had this rather funny insight, remembering back to high school mathematics in reference to complex numbers. If I placed a procedure/program into recursion, with a small test for a stable/unstable orbit, then the Mandelbrot set fell out. The wonderful patterns were mostly High School algebra in complex numbers.
With a little more work the Julian sets fell out also, if you take a seed point 'x,z', from the Mandelbrot set, then again place your simple program into recursion.
Since many more insights feel out just playing with the underlying mathematics and procedures.