Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

sadetheruiner t1_j7v8t0f wrote

Impossible to say, it’s impossible to say if there are or aren’t other dimensions. This is really a philosophical question, not remotely a space one.

21

ClamhouseSassman t1_j7va1y4 wrote

They aren't mutually exclusive. Or at least we don't know if they are yet. You probably don't exist in another dimension though. It's hard to prove you even exist in this one.

4

beef-o-lipso t1_j7vars7 wrote

It's hard for philosophers to prove we or they exist because they use words which are inexact.

Scientists have proven we exist in this space/time.

2

ClamhouseSassman t1_j7vaxfc wrote

We can't prove that time exists

1

ElderWandOwner t1_j7vkvoi wrote

We can prove space-time, so I'm curious why we can't prove time exists?

1

ClamhouseSassman t1_j7vm5uc wrote

We can only prove that space and time are relative and that time is a matter of perspective between two points. There is no time constant. It's all relative and without a grand unifying theory it will stay just a relative component in measurement.

We are actively trying to prove that time is 'real' with no definitive answer

2

Thatingles t1_j7v9ifz wrote

The chance is either zero or 100% and we don't yet know which. If there is one, finite, universe, it is simply impossible that it would happen, the odds are too great. If the universe is infinite, or if there are an infinite number of universes, the chance is 100% because that's just how infinity works (even something with a vanishingly small chance of happening will occur an infinite number of times).

No one knows which of these answers is correct.

10

Kilharae t1_j7vb9lw wrote

I disagree with this. Not all infinities are the same. The Universe could be infinite, and yet, there could be infinitely more variations of you (IE not the same), as an example, than there is space to contain an exact version, even with space being infinite. Also, just because the universe is infinite, it doesn't mean any combination of particles is possible. Ultimately, we're all a function of our entire observable universe, so if there's an 'exact copy' of you living in a universe where a single star, a billion light years away has a slightly different property, and you're aware of it, then by definition, it's not an exact copy. So you'd have to look far enough for not only a copy of you, but a copy of your entire observable universe which was able to contain that copy and ultimately, I think even with infinite space, there's probably not enough room to contain an identical copy of our entire observable universe. Basically, there are infinitely more variations of our own universe possible, than the infinity of space can hold to reproduce it exactly. So I think it's infinitely more likely to see a variation than a copy.

0

Thatingles t1_j7vemfo wrote

Nope. Infinity means infinity, not very large finite. All infinities contain infinite copies of you, no matter how long the odds. It's not an easy thing to think about, but there it is. What you have described is a very large finite universe, but that is precisely what infinity isn't. The difference between a very large but finite thing and an infinite thing is in itself infinite.

4

Kilharae t1_j7vfhfk wrote

You should probably look into this more, because there are indeed different types of infinities, and some are larger than others. For instance, there are more numbers between 0 and 1 than there are integers going to infinity. I wasn't talking about finite space, I was talking about one infinity of variation, vs. another infinity of size. What I'm suggesting is that the infinity of variation is larger than the infinity of size. So even with infinite space, there may be infinitely more types of universes to fill that space than there is space itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxGsU8oIWjY watch this video if you're curious to learn more.

0

jaibhavaya t1_j7vixdj wrote

The difference in cardinality of infinities is certainly true, but also doesn’t change the fact that they are still infinities.

Take the example you brought up.

For ever single integer, there are an infinite amount of numbers between it and the previous integer. If you’re talking about traversing the numbers 0->1 in finite time, then of course you can find that you’ll never get to 1. However we aren’t talking about traversing universes in a finite amount of time. We’re talking about existence. The fact that I cannot traverse the numbers between 0->1 doesn’t prove the non existence of the number 2.

Thus, even if the types of infinities at play here mismatch, it doesn’t mean that elements within those infinities don’t exist. They’re infinite.

2

Kilharae t1_j7vjnk6 wrote

But it doesn't mean they do exist either, if they were guaranteed to exist, then the infinities would be equal. If one infinity is infinitely larger than another, then you cannot say that the smaller infinity could contain the larger one. What I'm suggesting is that the infinite universe could be a version of this 'smaller' infinity. While the variations within each 'universe' could be considered the larger infinity. So, it's possible that the infinite universe, is not infinite enough to contain even every variation within a single universe, much less infinite copies of it.

0

oswaldcopperpot t1_j7vf5cb wrote

Look at it this way. Even the same order of a deck of cards being the same would probably fill the observable universe. Adding a bit more information for even the smallest collection of molecules would start increasing the unlikely hood exponentially of having it duplicated.

1

Kilharae t1_j7vgv54 wrote

I'm really not sure what you're trying to communicate here.

1

Longjumping-Tie-7573 t1_j7vaugc wrote

Considering the fact that multiple universes only exists as a concept in our heads due to a science experiment (all other ideas about the nature of Reality derive from pre-Scientific myths and such), that tells me multiverse theory has a higher-than-zero chance of being truth.

So, there's a higher-than-zero chance of 'you' existing in another universe.

2

OnlyMortal666 t1_j7vbf5l wrote

You assume you exist to start with.

If there are infinite universes then, obviously, yes. If there are, say, eleven (to pick a prime number), then probably not.

2

The_Fredrik t1_j7vckig wrote

Zero.

It might be a copy of you, but it won’t be you since “you” is product of your conscience.

You are not conscious in any a way of any alternative you, meaning they are not you, in an meaningful way of the word.

It be freaking sweet to meet a true doppelgänger though.

2

Kilharae t1_j7vh75n wrote

Well, I think people presume that a copy of you would have a copy of your conscience too. And it is not necessary for a copy to be aware of other copies for it to be a copy, so I disagree with your logic here. Although, not necessarily with your conclusion. I definitely get there via a different route, which I describe elsewhere on this thread.

2

The_Fredrik t1_j7vjcc0 wrote

But that’s exactly my point.

A copy of you is not you, no matter got how good the copy is.

1

Kilharae t1_j7vkfi0 wrote

You have to give a reason though. Just saying so doesn't make it true. You can call a copy of you a copy, but that's just semantics, you could just as easily be described as the copy. I mean, unless you're alluding to the idea of a 'soul' being intrinsically unique or something like that. In which case, it's no longer a scientific argument.

1

The_Fredrik t1_j7vl785 wrote

How do you define “you” if not for your distinct body, your distinct conscious experience?

Do you experience any of these copies? No. Then even assuming they exist they are not you, only copies. Similar yes, but distinct in every way that matters.

If you disagree you have to define clearly what you mean by “you”.

1

Kilharae t1_j7vlthl wrote

I would define you in 4 dimensions, so if you can imagine a 4d blob of yourself as your traverse time throughout your entire existence, as well as how you came to be and how you are disposed of when you die (which worms eat you, where they go afterwards etc.) And I think you can consider that another version of 'you'. Though I grant other, less exacting definitions of 'you' would probably pass muster for other people. But I think it's equally incumbent upon you to have to clearly define what you mean by 'you' to prove that there isn't another one out there. Delving into natural language definition and semantics seems to be the crux of your entire argument. If this becomes a debate over semantical definitions then this debate becomes completely asinine. You're basically saying that even if a copy exists, it's not you because its a copy... okay... maybe you can move yourself to get past your self imposed semantical restriction and ponder the actual argument. Because what you're doing is splitting hairs that don't matter.

1

Arbusc t1_j7vclb1 wrote

If we assume there are infinite universes, then there is both a net positive and negative 100% chance. You exist in as many universes as you do not.

2

CommunicationKey3649 t1_j7vbkwe wrote

That’s highly probable, it’s not hard to say. Based on the infinite nature of the universe there’s actually infinite versions of you.

1

JimeneMisfit t1_j7vcfkn wrote

I’d say it’s analogous to quantum mechanics- 50/50. It maybe does exist until we observe it, which is why it is an elusive concept to grasp. It’s in the state of existence until we look for it, at which point it no longer exists. As a physics major, I learned to accept that some things are just beyond our limit of perception as human beings. I think if we could somehow detach our consciousness from our mind and be just that - a consciousness without our body (which is bound to this reality), we could see through the proper lens to answer your question. However, we are limited to the physics of our dimension. As Einstein said about quantum entanglement - “spooky action at a distance.” I think the same can be said for multiverses. It’s simply that - a spooky concept that resides a great distance from our reality. Maybe beyond this life, but in this one - its a philosophical theory. I sometimes think this reality would crumble if we could answer such things. I don’t think our minds could handle such a truth.

1

letsplay123456789 OP t1_j7ve7ri wrote

Btw I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson say that their is a chance that I might exist in another universe but with a 5 min time delay between the two but I can’t wrap my head around that

1

Kilharae t1_j7vhqkx wrote

5 minutes, simultaneous, an infinity in the past or the future. If our copy is infinitely far away, I think trying to come up with some sort of common reference frame is futile. Maybe it's more helpful to think of ourselves as 4d objects, if the 4d version of ourselves exists somewhere else, I'm not sure you could really ever say for sure whether they existed 'simultaneously' or not. As we already know that even within our own universe, time is relative.

1

Apophis_406 t1_j7vf4s3 wrote

The chances are above zero, and that in itself is fascinating

1

space-ModTeam t1_j7vmkm4 wrote

Hello u/letsplay123456789, your submission "What are the chances of me existing in another universe?" has been removed from r/space because:

  • Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.

1

dgoeken t1_j7vpcbj wrote

I'd say it's an infinite number of chances because there are an infinite number of possible universes of existence. Probably says that is something exists in one occurrence of an infinite set, there are an infinite number of them in which that same thing exists.

1