AWKWARD ZOMBIE

My bad on the fixed timeline bit.

Your bad on infinity. You're doing that thing where you make up your own definitions that are wrong. Here's a puzzle, how many numbers are there that aren't five?

Assuming there's no limited ends on the number line, the number of numbers that aren't 5 is infinite.

1/3rd is .333333... with the threes going on infinitely.

The instant something goes from "very big" to "no limits" it becomes infinite. If there is a limit, even if it's astronomically large and impossible to type out, it is not infinite, but finite.

Another thing is that numbers can be made up. If someone wanted to spend years and years and years on the subject, they could probably just think up a number that absolutely nothing is. Numbers are bodaciously only limited by the number of zeroes you can put on the end of one.

But "not five" is a limit. My point is that just because a given event may be impossible, there are still infinite possible events. You could put a limit of "not creating matter or energy from nothing" on the set "possible events" and the set could still be infinite.

numbers are not "made up;" I don't know what you're trying to say. You're not making a point very well if at all.

I'm saying that there are only so many numbers we have named, and that in theory, you could come up with a number that is so high that no amount of matter, when counted out, could ever reach it. It would be a number, but not a number that could be reached.

Note that this wouldn't be infinity either. Infinity isn't a number, it's a concept.

I'm beginning to question your grasp of the concepts we're discussing.

Here's a better demonstration. If you don't get it, I'm going to give up.

We have a circle. It is an arc spanning 360 degrees. From the 0/360 degree point to the 90 degree point, I decree all points on the circle invalid. The remaining points of the circle consist of a 270 degree arc. The number of points in this arc is still infinite because that's how circles and arcs work. That is an example that is totally exempt from your criticism of infinity. (Not that your statement was relevant to the discussion as it pertains to hypotheticals, anyway)

What you're doing is exactly like pointing at a recursive fractal and saying it's finite because it doesn't fill all of space forever. You're demonstrating a total lack of understanding. I'm sorry, but you really shouldn't be talking about infinity if you believe limitations make a set necessarily finite.

I'm saying it's finite because while (maybe, mind you) an infinite number of things could happen, on the smallest possible scale then the options of things to happen is limited, if not by it being the smallest possible thing, then by the simple fact that everything takes time to occur and most things take much longer relatively than the smallest possible amount of time. This means the potential universes occurring from that smallest possible amount is not going to be infinite.

You're going to have to explain that better.

Are you saying "time happens in very small increments so changes must be very small" ???? Because buddy that doesn't make a single difference and is founded on a claim of dubious and fundamentally unknowable factuality.

I'm saying there's not infinite options at the smallest level.

I figured that was clear when I said "This means the potential universes occurring from that smallest possible amount is not going to be infinite."

And where exactly are you getting this fact? There are infinite possibilities at every level unless you believe our world is digital, with some analogue to pixels at a very, very deep subatomic level.

And if that's what you're proposing, then you'd better be an incredibly brilliant scientist with some hella impressive evidence for it. Otherwise, your argument is entirely baseless because that is not a theory that has ever been anywhere near proven and frankly I'd be surprised if it has ever even been proposed.

Let's say that events that occur in the timeline are limted to "yes" or "no" outcomes (even as far as subatomic particle behavior).

There are only two possible outcomes from any choice made, so unless the amount of choices in the universe are infinite (which would occur if time were infinite), the possible recombination of every single outcome possible is inherently finite. It'd be like a string of binary that extends from the beginning of the universe to the end of time. Any time a digit changes, it branches off, and even though it grows by a factor of two per digit, it's still finite when it reaches the last digit.

Now, not everything is a yes or no decision. There are many, many times where you have more than 2 choices. However, it's very likely that none of them have an infinite amount of choices (limits can and will be placed on the choices, many by the fundamental laws of the universe).

IF there are no choices that have an infinite amount of outcomes (which at least seems likely), and assuming time isn't infinite (this is where it gets iffy), there's a finite amount of alternate timelines. This is what GM is getting at when discussing the finite nature of the universe, if I'm understanding him correctly.

But, we don't know what limits exist on the available choices or on time itself. Perhaps in the event that there are infinite timelines, it's possible, but unlikely, to come across repeats.

It all depends on the nature of time, which we don't have a good grasp of. The theoretical nature of this makes it hard to get anywhere, but the importance of the dialogue is that once we get to a point where we CAN test this scientifically, we'll hopefully have an idea of what the hell is going on when we have the data come back.

Where are you getting the idea that there's an infinite number of possibilities from a single point? Because that's by definition impossible to prove.
Random does not mean infinite. Something can happen randomly from a set number of possibilities. Random things can happen, but more than likely not infinite things. Infinite is a very, very, disgustingly big term. It's so big it stops being a number. You cannot break infinity down into math, unlike the rest of reality. It can't be simplified.

There's not infinite possibilities at every level either. There is an incredibly finite amount of things I could do right now. My entire life, everything, could not even come close to infinite. The entire history of Earth would not have infinite possibility.

So, seeing as there's not infinite possibility at my level, there's no reason to assume so at any other level other than a scale that is itself infinitely big.

Random, yes. Random things do happen. Particles can actually just start existing for reasons we're completely unsure of. But it's more than likely not infinite. Even if there's more than we can count.


This is assuming a finite universe though, which is what I've been doing for simplicity. If the universe is actually infinite and goes on forever, then this just gets tossed right out the fucking window. Who the fuck knows at that point, because then anything could happen and any argument for anything is only correct for so long.



Yeah, basically.

The only thing is that there would be infinite branching timelines, because each finite branch would also branch and they would never stop making new branches.

This is the big issue with what you guys are saying. Conventional scientific reasoning, as well as common sense, indicates that nothing in this universe is boolean in a practical way unless it is engineered to be boolean or is the condition 'exists.' Whether or not a particle occupies a given space is a bad way to look at things. You should be asking "where is the particle?" There are infinite possibilities for this. It could be an inch to the right. It could be a foot to the left. It could be one Planck length up. It could be half a Planck length backwards, though at this point it becomes impossible for us to observe the difference.
(If you propose that it's impossible for velocities/positions to change at the quantum level to effect this, then you'll have a hard time justifying the claim that human choices can cause alternate timelines. Brains are much more deterministic than quantum mechanics.)

Also it's kind of bad form to argue that time is a series of discrete units. While it is true that it is impossible to observe a length of time shorter than Planck time, that doesn't mean things don't happen in Planck time. I'm sorry to keep coming back to this, but quantum events can be (and frequently are - decoherence, for example) shorter than Planck time. Again, we live in a universe that is assumed to be analog.


GM you should stop holding serious discussion. "By definition impossible to prove" applies to your arguments much more than it does to mine and you're acting much more self-assured about them, bandying about words like "bodaciously" every other sentence.

I'n not sure what you're getting at with "infinite possibilities on my level." Do you mean your hand can't exist in an infinite number of locations? Yes it can. It could exist 1/2" east of where it is now. It could exist 1/4" east of where it is right now. It could exist 1/8" east of where it is right now. It could exist 1/16" east of where it is right now. It could exist 1/32" east of where it is right now. Do you see the trend? I could start progressing by powers of three if you still don't grasp this incredibly simple concept, or maybe a different part of your body? Would that help?

Something can exist in an infinite number of locations in an infinite universe.

In a finite universe (as i said i was assuming), because the universe isn't infinite, there would be a finite number of locations.

So no, in this example there still isn't infinite possibility.

How many numbers are there between ten and zero?