The infinite Universe revisited

I'm not sure it can be constituted as ironic but your alleged thread link went here:

And that's truly revisiting existentialism at its best.

Well put Tsar, but now how can we interest other participants in the infinite

I do agree with your point #2. For me that sort of a conclusion, drawn from some tortured and misunderstood 'logic', is very reminiscent of that famous paradox which proves that the missile (bullet, arrow, javelin, whathaveyou) can never hit its mark because there will always be left half of the distance to cover. Very similar thinking involved in claiming that anything that can happen, will.

As for the infinity of the universe and its enternality, I suggest you consult Spinoza. Or, perhaps, al-Kindi.

It’s not too far off the mark however. Let’s assume that actions proceed in quantum jumps. In that case there are a finite number of possible Universes and if our usual assumption about probability is correct then all possible combinations and permutations of these discrete states will happen

However if the Universe isn’t digital but analog, then yes it’s quite possible that there will never be an exact replication though some Universes or galaxies will be very similar

Zeno’s Paradox I think it’s called

I think this paradox has been largely discounted


My objection to an infinite Universe, especially one of the quantum persuasion, is that there will simultaneously exist for instance an infinite number of every possible galaxy, a concept the Intuition rejects as absurd

Better is a finite Universe. However even if finite, given forever we should still experience an infinite number of every possible version, it’s just that said repetitions couldn’t happen simultaneously and almost always would be spaced apart in time by a number of years so large we have no way of expressing it

And again, yes, no, I agree that if it’s instead an analog Universe then we won’t have any exact repetitions; but again, we’ll find some very similar to one another; so nearly simnilar that by today’s methods it might be impossible to tell them apart

A finite time span doesn’t solve our problem though because it entails all sorts of paradox and contradiction, the idea for instance of its popping into existence out of nothingness. So again we have to suppose one or more of our assumptions are wrong. My guess is our concept of infinity entails some logical blocks, for instance requiring us to address different “kinds” of infinity progressing at different rates