Re: reasoning under computational limitations

Ross A. Finlayson (
Mon, 05 Apr 1999 14:07:42 -0400

Michael S. Lorrey wrote:

> "Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
> > Wei Dai wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would you suggest that, on philosophical grounds, we have evidence that
> > > > the universe cannot be infinite (without preferred positions)?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > If the universe is not infinite, what is it that lays infinitely beyond it?
> >
> > I put forward that beyond our universe is absolute vacuum with no light, and
> > beyond that approximately infinitely more universes in various stages of
> > expansion and contraction. Similarly to how we might astronomically observe
> > protostars forming and supernovae, perhaps somewhere right now a new universe
> > is experiencing its Big Bang, and another is contracting to either a super
> > black hole or a proto-universe to explode again.
> However, logical analysis suggests that the distance between any two universes in
> the infinite vacuum would also be infinite.

The distance between two universes might approach infinity, but would not be infinity, and there would still be an infinity of space left for the rest of the universes. In terms of scale that a human can comprehend, the distance is very large. This average distance between universes is approximately infinitely small compared to infinity.

> Read and understand the following:
> a) The odds of a universe beginning are infinitessimally small, a finite
> probability.
> b) The lifespan of of the average universe is also finite.
> therefore, c) follows:
> c) There are a finite number of universes in existence in the true vacuum at any
> given time.
> If this is true, then a finite number of universes spread through infinite amount
> of true vacuum makes the average distance between two universes infinite.

The distance is not infinity, although it approaches infinity. There would still be an infinity of space left for the rest of the universes.

> Because of this, no two unverses can collide.

Ipso facto, two universes can collide.

> Prof. John Cramer has suggested
> that it may be easier to build a wormhole between two different universes than
> between two points in the same universe. Why? Because if you have two ends of a
> wormhole within finite distance of each other you will generate a causal loop,
> which is amplified in proportion to the amount of relativistically caused
> temporal shift between the time frames of the two ends. When you have such a
> shift, as has been posited for a wormhole used for time travel, you will get some
> matter which goes back in time through the wormhole, then travels back to the
> original mouth, and goes back in time again, etc, eventually causing so much
> matter to travel in this loop that you cause the universe to implode.

Dimensional travel other than conventional 3-D in 4-D (space through time) travel would be the way to get around.

> >
> >
> > Where two expanding universes collide, there shall be much energy. Crossing
> > the barrier or region between two universes might be possible or impossible.
> > Two universes colliding is a wave of energy from each universe colliding at
> > almost the speed of light. I believe relativity holds true as we can see
> > from the redshift phenomenon. There are some redshift anomalies, but
> > evidence points towards the Big Bang theory.
> >
> > Alternately, there is an ontological plane above ours where our universe is
> > an experiment in a test tube.
> >
> > Of course, similarly, all the universes in an infinity of space might simply
> > be an occurrence in a higher level ontological plane.
> Universes as we know them are merely aberrations in the stability of the true
> vacuum. It cannot be a perfect vacuum, because perfection is unstable.

Entropy exists. All of the universes in all space taken together at one time represent 3-dimensional totality, that is, the Universe. I use the term totality, another idempotent or synonymous term might be unity.

> >
> >
> > An approximately infinitely long time ago, prior to the Big Bang, if it
> > occurred, either something existed, or nothing existed, on our ontological
> > plane.
> >
> > I would suggest the term Universe (capitalized) to represent all the
> > universes in an infinity of space, conjecturally. I would suggest the term
> > Metaverse to represent all things.
> Its called the Multiverse.

OK. Then, the Multiverse represents totality in i dimensions, as well as whatever else there might be. There might be a difference between totality in i dimensions and All, as a higher ontological plane than that by definition exists.

Scalar infinity, oo, in some form, is probably the square root of negative one.

Ross F.

Ross Andrew Finlayson
"C is the speed of light."