I once heard something somewhere. It was, basically, that we cannot explain what is not of our universe. Of a universe unlike ours. I don't quite agree with that. Since we can come up with things that are not logical in any way, other universes could be explained. Only difference is that here in our universe all that knowledge would have no practical value. What do we know about our own world? Everything we know comes from seeing how one acts with another. So, if we could somehow see how things act with each other in another universe, "rules" would start deriving. A new, different kind of science. Any thoughts?
I'm not sure what you are suggesting, but as far as I know, there are serious suggestions that parallel universes are likely. Their existence would explain many things, such as particles coming out of nowhere. That is the extent of my knowledge on the subject, though..
I don't think that is a possibility, Justin. Those are mathematically defined terms and an inequality in any universe. To the extent we can observe and/or interact with another universe, I suspect it has fundamental principles similar to our own. If another "universe" exists that is so foreign as to be based on entirely different principles of physics, it seems unlikely that we could access it.
That's the point I'm trying to make. There could be a universe so alien to us that we couldn't even see it, let alone comprehend it. What if there's a universe where pi is a finite number?
Yeah, I get what you are saying. I suppose what I mean is this: if "1" plus "1" added to 3 in another universe, then the thing you are adding wouldn't really be "1" anymore, would it? By definition. Does that make sense?
Pretty much. If you can have a Sheldon that's a clown made of candy, I'm sure we could find a universe out there where Styrofoam is the most massive substance in existence.
No offense, but despite the name and initial premise, I wouldn't count on Big Bang Theory to teach you anything useful. They used to have science jokes (which was the fun part, not the run-of-the-mill crap they do now), but most of the science stuff was inaccurate at best. Most of hte time, it was just plain wrong. Anyway, the entire known universe follows strict rules like atoms, DNA and all that. People, birds, rocks, even the air is all made up from the same thing and follows the same rules. So even if there is a parallell universe out there that's so alien to us that we can't comprehend it even if we are standing right in the middle of it, it will still have to be based on the same stuff our universe is based on. No matter how many universes we explore, pi will never be a finite number, two plus two will never be three and so on.
Just like the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth, right? You're thinking in finite terms. The laws of mathematics could very well be different in another universe, and our laws could look strange to someone from that universe. The moment you have infinite possibilities, you run into things that will make absolutely no sense. Such as when 1=2.
Actually, not only is the Earth round, but -all- planets are round. You will never find a square-shaped planet, a pyramid-shaped planet and so on. That's because of a thing called gravity. Asteroids and so on have different shapes, but they are only fragments of bigger things like stars. The reason people said the earth was flat was because they didn't know any better and believed it was flat, not because the earth changed shape. There's a big difference in believes and facts. If you had a universe where gravity was reversed, planets wouldn't form, and life would not exist. If we could somehow change the Earth's gravity's direction, Earth would be torn apart. And look at the life forms on this planet. There are billions of different species, yet every single one of them are built by the same atoms, follows the same laws of physics and so on. I'm pretty sure a bird looks very different on things than a human or a fish, but we are all living on the same planet, following the same physics and obeying the same laws of nature. True, if we go back two hundred years, it would be very difficult to comprehend what the modern day looks like. Planes, escalators, the internet, cars, cell phones; all that would be sci-fi to people back then, just like things like teleporters and visiting other planets look like sci-fi to us. Even so, both teleporters and visiting other planets were possible hundreds of years ago - in theory. Just becaue we didn't know how (and still don't), it doesn't mean it's not possible. But what you are talking about is not possible. Two plus two will never be five. All life on Earth are carbon based, but if we look through the entire universe, there might be life forms based on other ground elements. Some scientists say life based on scilisium is very possible, for instance. But even so, even a scilisium-based creature would still have to follow the same physics and we carbon based creatures. Just like all other worlds in all parallell universes would have to follow the same physics as this one.
Again, you're making assumptions that other universes would follow laws similar to ours. Why not a universe where fields aren't uniform? Why not a universe with square planets because gravity works in a different way? You are taking things that you know and applying them to things which you would have no way of ever observing. That makes the argument fallacious from the start. If there are infinite universes, then there are infinite possibilities, including things which are impossible in our universe.
You are saying that everything is made of the same things. What if there are entirely different fundamental things that make up their own and very unique and very different universe? A universe where there are no atoms nor any other bits as they are here, instead there are particles entirely unlike ours. Where there is not a single one that you could find here. They have their own particles and forces, which can be very unlike ours. If something is impossible here, it is impossible elsewhere, because elsewhere there would be different laws. Something is impossible if one part is by the rules and the other is not. For it to be possible elsewhere it would require the same laws, except the other part, which in return would make everything collapse, or, rather, make the concept not obtainable in the first place.
So a universe of non-uniform fields is impossible simply because it is impossible in this universe? That doesn't make any sense.
Technically, and this is a huge stretch, then yes, there -might- be a universe out there built from different things than this one. In theory. But I don't think there's much of a chance of that. Everything in this universe is made from the same things. People, animals, the air, planets, stars, you name it. And as I said, all life on Earth is carbon based, but there can easily be life forms based on other things like scilicium. But even if there is a lone, teleporting, invisible alien on the planet Obo who's made of glass and plastic, it will still have to be built from the same stuff as the rest of the universe. Now ask yourself this: What is the actual universe made from? If everything in the entire universe is made from the same atoms and all that, wouldn't the universe itself be made from the same things? And if so, why would other universes be made from something different?
Why would they be made of the same stuff as ours is? Everything everywhere the same. It sounds too boring to be true. There could be other universes right here everywhere around us, but they have a different "frequency", and so we cannot perceive them.
This is actually a pretty interesting question, because you're trying to understand the metaphysics of another possible world in order to explain our own epistemic problems. I have to agree with what Justin said about the logical workings of another universe. So, lets take a look if we can. Generally speaking, when we begin to talk about the necessary truths, we tend to think of them as apriori (not requiring experience), and math is considered to be totally apriori, therefore, math has to be necessary (a universe can't work without it, or we can't imagine a universe without it) as it works now, right? (I disagree with this). Truths that require experiance are postpriori, or PP. Well, I dunno. You can make the case it isn't possible. Option A: Semantic. p.1: in world a, 1+1=2 p.2: in world a' 1+1+ 3 ----- c.1 (possible) A and A' have different meanings for "1" objection: 1 is used the same way twice, in a'. counter: 1 has a value of 1.5 in A' objection: Across possible worlds, in order for us in the actual world to understand, names (here number one) must be ridged. (that way, when I say bill Clinton, we can find him in the possible world) Counter: A: "1" isn't a name. B: Names of numbers, here for this argument, are symbols for values X. C: In A "1" has value relative to the actual world 1.0 or a whole In A' "1" has a value relative the actual world 1.5, or a whole and a half whole. D: Therefore, We are no longer referring to the same thing. (We are actually looking at 1, where 1 means 1*1.5 (in order to get the values required by math for 3)) Or E: The statement (1*1.5) + (1*1.5) is different than the statement 1 + 1 F: Therefore, the use of 1 is different. G: The computations are actually derivable from the mathematical relative the actual world. G: Therefore, math actually isn't working any differently. Okay, that's one option, but it has a wrinkle, if you ask me. Math is apriori, and through our apriori thinking here, we have to imagine a world by which we have a PP knowledge of. Thats weak, bro. option 2: epistemic. p.1 math is apriori p.2 apriori truths are necessary across all possible words. p.3 1 + 1 = 2 is aprori p.4 1 is equal to place holder value X p.5 Therefore, "x+x =2" = "1+1=2" obj: X + X = 2 is PP (because the value of x is unknown; x +x = 2x is apriori) obj: The two statements are different, because one requires experience and the other does not. obj: because they are different, they are using different operations. That is, we require experience of the other statement in world A'. math can work differently in a possible world. So, that ones a little better, but its so abstract. Maybe this will be better... p.1 There is no world where I can stand and sit at the same time. (time is key here.) This is considered to be apriori. p.2 Time is a physical property, understood or questioned through physics. p.3 Physical laws are not necessary, as they are PP. p.4 p.1 is apriori, yet entails p.2 which is PP. C.1 p.1 is not apriori p.5 I can imagine a world where time moves differently, such that a moment may "overlap" p.6 in this possible world, I may be sitting and standing at once. c.2 (derived from c.1 and p.6) Apriori truths are contingent upon the world where the person is thinking. That is, p.1 only makes sense to us as our world works that way.
