20226Re: [FI] Universes (was: For Ch2 - Shadow Particles)
- Mar 18On Mar 16, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Alan Forrester alanmichaelforrester@... [fallible-ideas] <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2017, at 22:13, 'anonymous FI' anonymousfallibleideas@... [fallible-ideas] <email@example.com> wrote:I've found stuff involving infinity really difficult to wrap my brain around in a way I felt like I could understand and explain and apply. This post reminded me of that fact.
>> On 14 Mar 2017, at 15:21, Alan Forrester
>> alanmichaelforrester@... [fallible-ideas] wrote:
>>> On 14 Mar 2017, at 14:24, 'anonymous FI'
>>> anonymousfallibleideas@... [fallible-ideas]
>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> I’m still reading Ch2. I am slow, but it doesn’t prompt as many
>>>> comments as Ch1.
>>>> Sometimes it takes several readings to think I’ve got it.
>>>> For example, I found the following hard to understand [referring to
>>>> shadow particles]:
>>>>> In other words, they do not form a single, homogeneous parallel
>>>>> universe vastly larger than the tangible one, but rather a huge
>>>>> of parallel universes, each similar in composition to the tangible
>>>>> one, and each obeying the same laws of physics, but differing in
>>>>> the particles are in different positions in each universe.
>>>> (3) The shadow particles of everything else (stuff not involved in
>>>> experiment) may be in same or different places in each universe in
>>>> the experiment takes place. We don’t care about them because they
>>>> nothing to do with the experiment.
>>> A universe is a kind of story told after the fact about what happened.
>>> It’s best not to get too hung up on whether things are in the same
>>> universe or not.
>> Like light, I’m having trouble thinking about a universe. Even without
>> getting hung up on whether things are in the same universe or not, I
>> have other problems.
>> One problem I’m having is with combinatorial explosion. FoR uses an
>> example with a frog:
>>> We have seen that the story of the frog that stares at the distant
>>> torch for days at a time, waiting for the flicker that comes on
>>> average once a day, is not the whole story, because there must also be
>>> shadow frogs, in shadow universes that co-exist with the tangible one,
>>> also waiting for photons. Suppose that our frog is trained to jump
>>> when it sees a flicker. At the beginning of the experiment, the
>>> tangible frog will have a large set of shadow counterparts, all
>>> initially alike. But shortly afterwards they will no longer all be
>>> alike. Any particular one of them is unlikely to see a photon
>>> immediately. But what is a rare event in any one universe is a common
>>> event in the multiverse as a whole. At any instant, somewhere in the
>>> multiverse, there are a few universes in which one of the photons is
>>> currently striking the retina of the frog in that universe. And that
>>> frog jumps.
>> Relying on a concept I saw in BoI, I’m assuming the particles in the
>> frog are initially fungible. But they become differentiated when the
>> frog jumps. After a day there’s…millions? Billions? Of
>> differentiated frogs. But mustn’t each and every one of those
>> differentiated frogs also contain enough fungible stuff to further
>> differentiate? Each of the frogs differentiated by seeing a photon and
>> jumping at a different time, in turn may see a second photon right away,
>> or later…so some jump a second time right away and some don’t until
>> a little later and so on…further differentiating into still more
>> frogs. And then some of those will see a third, and a fourth, etc. all
>> at different times.
>> Seems like, even only considering frogs, the differentiation of
>> previously differentiated stuff combines to make the total number of
>> frogs infinite, or at least really super large (and what would the limit
>> Where does the stuff to make all these frogs come from? Was it there all
>> along or is more spontaneously created as soon as an event that causes
>> differentiation happens?
> The stuff doesn’t come from anywhere. There is a continuous infinity of fungible frogs, like the real number line. That continuous infinity of fungible frogs differentiates over time. The number of instances of frogs doesn’t increase or decrease as a result of the differentiation. You’re just taking the set that already exists and dividing it up. The same amount of stuff exists before and after a division.
And I don't have trouble understanding complex concepts generally, so I assume I have some systematic mistake or set of mistakes I'm making in my thinking about infinity in particular, but I don't know what it is.
I can easily conceive of some actual set number of universes differentiating many times. Like you have 1024 universes, and they differentiate in some way where something happens in half the universes and something doesn't happen in half the universes (lets call the thing Event A or something). And then you look at the 512 Event A universes and something happens in 3/4 of them (Event B) and so you have 384 Event A + B Universes, 128 Event A Only Universes, and 512 No Event Universes. And on and on.
But the endless differentiation of infinities of universes seems weird to me. I guess cuz one of the things about the sort of differentiation I was just describing is that you can easily assess the ratios of stuff happening in them. You can think of stuff in terms of probability of happening across the set of universes you're considering -- like above you could say it's equally likely that neither Event occurs and that at least 1 Event occurs.
But doing that with infinity seems harder. If you differentiate an infinite set of universes in some way, you still have an infinity after the differentiation, although both are smaller (?!) than the infinity that you had before the differentiation. What??? 🤔
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>