Abstract Question About Variability in Existence

40 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jhoop's picture
Abstract Question About Variability in Existence

Today I woke up asking myself a question that I’ll share...

“If there is infinite time between events and each event can be assigned an estimated probability of not occurring equal to 1/k^(n) where n is the number of attempts. After each event occurs there is a probability that both it and all other possible complementary events will occur again. Then with infinite time, these events would occur again and all possible events occur. What then, makes this experienced reality the only one lived?”

This seemed to go here on this forum because it appears to contradict the non-existence of after-life and determinism.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
You might find this

You might find this interesting.

calhais's picture
One problem here is inducing

One problem here is inducing orbit bounds, or equivalently, proving that an event space--if we're sticking with the analogy--has preserved volume. This follows from the proposition that there is a finite amount of mass-energy in the universe, but a practical interpretation makes it more or less moot for most recurrence times.

LostLocke's picture
The idea, or "problem", with

The idea, or "problem", with a time loop concept is that it may very well exist, but it might be on a scale that we can't perceive. IE, it may take trillions upon trillions of years for time to come back around to itself.
That being said, the idea of time being circular rather than linear intrigues me. And I have no "logical" problems with that.

arakish's picture
The universe is said to have

The universe is said to have been in its current State of Universal Expansion for about 13.7 to 13.8 billion years. As far as I am concerned, that is long enough for anything and everything to have had the chance to occur.

LoatLocke: That being said, the idea of time being circular rather than linear intrigues me. And I have no "logical" problems with that.

@ LostLocke: Actually that is part of my hypothesis behind the universe having eternal existence...

rmfr

calhais's picture
If I had to select a logic to

If I had to select a logic to model the problem, then I would not choose a fuzzy logic because it would, more or less, produce a probabilistic formulation like yours. I would rather focus on the modal statistics of partially ordered sets. One way to see whether a die is fair is to roll it many times and tally the number of times each face comes up. However, you can gather the information faster by also keeping track of the order in which the faces land upward, since permutations with repetition over a set most often contain more information than combinations with repetition. Moreover, with an ordered set, you can induce order rather than relying solely on tallied statistics.

What then, makes this experienced reality the only one lived?”

My answer would be `order' or `sequence.' You've got to pay attention.

Jhoop's picture
Ok thanks for getting back

Ok thanks for getting back with these responses! Will churn it over, hope it wasnt too subjective. Well if you took the statistics in some way to achieve a numeric representation of the chance of human creation occuring as they have up to now. Don't see how this would change if you found the individual probabilities of each action individually. Why would that make a difference?

arakish's picture
For one, humans were not

For one, humans were not created.

Of course I may be making an ass of u and me (assume). When you said, "chance of human creation occurring", I am assuming you meant like in the Bible? If am wrong, then sorry. As said, assume = ass of u and me (but mostly me).

rmfr

David Killens's picture
@ Jhoop

@ Jhoop

"What then, makes this experienced reality the only one lived?"

I don't care how many times the possibility exists, I am only concerned with the here and now. My senses indicate to me that I exist in the here and now, anything else is just word salad and extra complications that may or may not exist.

calhais's picture
Why on Earth anyone trusts

Why on Earth anyone trusts their senses absolutely is beyond me.

Alembé's picture
Hi calhais,

Hi calhais,

I will continue to trust my senses rather than another's non-senses.

David Killens's picture
@ calhais

@ calhais

When you cross an intersection, you look both ways.

My senses are my window to this reality, the world I live in.

What else do you claim works, and can be proven to be effective, reliable, and leads to the truth?

calhais's picture
Presumably, concept alone.

Presumably, concept alone. The blind do not look both ways, but they walk on.

David Killens's picture
@calhais

@calhais

"Presumably, concept alone. The blind do not look both ways, but they walk on."

That's a pretty evasive answer. You don't like it when presented with simple common sense.

arakish's picture
Yep. Just like John Breezy..

Yep. Just like John Breezy...

rmfr

calhais's picture
Because common sense fails

Because common sense fails for most uncommon tasks. As a matter of fact, it is acceptable to trust your senses, but it's irrational to believe that doing so requires no faith. It's better to have a formal way of deciding when and when not to trust your senses since that optimizes for least faith and least error. One way you could answer the OP would be by explaining a program for making those decisions, and identifying the points that rest on faith.

David Killens's picture
@calhais

@calhais

"Presumably, concept alone. The blind do not look both ways, but they walk on."

That's a pretty evasive answer. You don't like it when presented with simple common sense.

Dave Matson's picture
calhais,

calhais,

Why on Earth anyone trusts their senses absolutely is beyond me.

You trust your senses so that your departure from a building is not a random walk. (I see that you have qualified that statement. Much better!)

calhais's picture
In line with my earlier

In line with my earlier qualification, I'd like to point out that you can avoid random walks out of buildings without trusting your senses, to some degree, at least. We rely heavily both on our senses and on our model of the world just to navigate.

Sapporo's picture
I have no real problem with

I have no real problem with the idea that life exists in an infinite chain of all possible permutations. However, the concept of an "afterlife" is something which invokes the supernatural, which I regard as a meaningless attribute.

Jhoop's picture
Well afterlife in the literal

Well afterlife in the literal sense of life after death. So you have no qualm with posing this as possible and even necessary if the causes of effects were known to the extent where they were absolutely predictable by probability the same way as a coin toss? Isnt it difficult then to negotiate that with the idea that our free will determines the future? The selection of now by that train of thought would be a selection of one most necessary course to exist for some unknown reason.

Sapporo's picture
Well afterlife in the literal

Well afterlife in the literal sense of life after death. So you have no qualm with posing this as possible and even necessary if the causes of effects were known to the extent where they were absolutely predictable by probability the same way as a coin toss? Isnt it difficult then to negotiate that with the idea that our free will determines the future? The selection of now by that train of thought would be a selection of one most necessary course to exist for some unknown reason.

I am certain that after I die, I will live on in other lifeforms. So what do you mean by "the literal sense of life after death"?

David Killens's picture
An afterlife is not necessary

An afterlife is not necessary, just possible. And by our current technology and methods, unprovable. Just like unicorn farts.

arakish's picture
"Just like unicorn farts."

"Just like unicorn farts."

And I have heard they smell as sweet as roses...

Dang. Now I have to catch to test that...

rmfr

calhais's picture
What do you mean when you

What do you mean when you compare the idea of an afterlife to unicorn farts, exactly? Our suspicions about the world beyond what can be scientifically validated tend to drive us to expand science. Sometimes, those suspicions turn out to be accurate, and, sometimes, not. Unless you mean to offer a way to tell when such suspicions will turn out to be accurate and when they will not, I'm calling BS on your unicorn fart analogy.

Dave Matson's picture
You can't have an infinite

You can't have an infinite amount of time (expressed as integers) between two events! Infinity is not a number except in special mathematical systems. Something with an infinite past (expressed in integers) has no beginning any more than something with an open future has no end. Thus, you can't squeeze an infinity of integers between two points on the number line. However, there is speculation to the effect that copies of us, even of our entire lives, may necessarily exist in some concepts of the universe. I have some reservations about such speculation but who knows?

calhais's picture
``Expressed as integers''

``Expressed as integers''
Whether that's a valid representation of time is an open question in physics.

Tin-Man's picture
Ummm.... Show of hands,

Ummm.... Show of hands, please! How many folks here remember their life/lives before they were conceived/born?....*scanning room*.... Anybody?.... Did I miss somebody in the back?.....*still scanning*.... Oh, Old Man! Was your hand up?... Oh. No. Sorry. You were just picking your nose. Carry on.....*scanning*.... Hmmm.... Odd. I figured there would be at least one person in here who could remember any past life or lives they had. Well now. Go figure.... *scratching head*....

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ TM

@ TM

OY! I wasn't picking my nose I was applying my new foundation cream. Its magic. doesn't do anything for my face but somehow it makes your ugly mug bearable...
The "past lives" claims would be a lot more defensible if just one person could remember a past life that wasn't full of drama and could take researchers directly to where they lived, identify items or hidden items in that place and anything else that could incontrovertibly establish their identity. As far as I can find, no one has managed that yet although YouTube is alive with dubious claims that could well have been fraudulently arranged.

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man Re: "OY! I wasn't

@Old Man Re: "OY! I wasn't picking my nose I was applying my new foundation cream. Its magic. doesn't do anything for my face but somehow it makes your ugly mug bearable..."

Ha! I KNOW that is a lie! I have yet to ever hear of anything that makes my ugly mug bearable. Besides, what type of "foundation" do you have that requires you to use your index finger to place it halfway up into your sinus cavities?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Tin Man

@ Tin Man
Its a very special Foundation cream, that if you read the label in context you would realise you apply it from the inside then it can work its magical trick of making your ugly mug bearable and your curvy tin arse attractive...omg...I've overdosed....

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.