If time and space are infinite....

[Train]

If time and space are infinite, is it feasible to say that even the most improbable, is bound to happen?

Would it be "fact" that we already had this discussion several million eons ago? That all the molecules that make up me, my computer, the internet all the people who read this post, were arranged exactly in this manner at a previous point in time, and will of course re-arrange into this exact arrangement at future point in time? Because no matter how incredibly improbable it is, due to infinity, its bound to have happened before and bound to happen again. Or can someone poke a hole in this theory?

 

[Trianon]

Quite possible, maybe in different location in the universe, but this combo might have existed. The chance of it being intellegent is much slimmer though.

 

[Jakebrake]

Your hypothysis is a philosophical one and not a scientific one about the nature of space-time.

It will just lead to discussions like,? Is a probable impossibility more preferable(or easily explained) than an impossible probability??

 

[Soccerman06]

The only problem is, the universe is cooling down, eventually losing all energy (heat). Once all energy is lost, everything will stop moving and be quite boring.. All energy will disperse into the nothingness we call outerspace. But then again, this is suppose to take a very very long time, something like trillions of years.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Trianon
Quite possible, maybe in different location in the universe, but this combo might have existed. The chance of it being intellegent is much slimmer though.

Thats the point, no matter how "slim" the chance, given an infinite amount of time to achieve this exact arrangement, in would be inevitable.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
The only problem is, the universe is cooling down, eventually losing all energy (heat). Once all energy is lost, everything will stop moving and be quite boring.. All energy will disperse into the nothingness we call outerspace. But then again, this is suppose to take a very very long time, something like trillions of years.

Do we know that for sure? And cant heat be generated by gravity itself? If the universe came to a state of complete coldness, two rocks floating through space would attract eachother, collide, and create heat. Which would then become one mass, with more mass to attract other masses, and so on and so on.

 

[Skyhanger]

Umm... the problem is the fact the current scienticfic community mostly agrees that the universe is NOT infinite.
There is actually a finity number of galaxies/stars/atoms in our universe.

They might be wrong, but current evidence points to this.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Skyhanger
Umm... the problem is the fact the current scienticfic community mostly agrees that the universe is NOT infinite.
There is actually a finity number of galaxies/stars/atoms in our universe.

They might be wrong, but current evidence points to this.

I wouldnt argue with the statement that theres a finite amount of material, but with that material, given a long enough time line, will inevitably recreate an identical arrangement.

 

[Xyo II]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Skyhanger
Umm... the problem is the fact the current scienticfic community mostly agrees that the universe is NOT infinite.
There is actually a finity number of galaxies/stars/atoms in our universe.

They might be wrong, but current evidence points to this.

I wouldnt argue with the statement that theres a finite amount of material, but with that material, given a long enough time line, will inevitably recreate an identical arrangement.

sorry, but no. only if you are thinking about the regenerative theory of the universe (one where instead of the mass at the edge of the universe eventually slows down and the average temperature of the universe will be about 1 degrees kelvin, the universe's collective gravitational pull is strong enough to cause a collapse, and all of the mass in the universe will be brought back to one point- to start another big bang) is there is a possibility that a future cycle will hold the same. but before (if) that happens, in the present cycle, there is not enough energy to cuase this to happen.

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
The only problem is, the universe is cooling down, eventually losing all energy (heat). Once all energy is lost, everything will stop moving and be quite boring.. All energy will disperse into the nothingness we call outerspace. But then again, this is suppose to take a very very long time, something like trillions of years.

the universe is not losing all of its energy. it is just dispersing itself equally across the universe, like a cup of hot water in a big bowl in a football field, verses a cup of hot water spread out on a football field, where the ambient temperature is 0 kelvin. the average temperature will be the same, it will just be spread out.

 

[Skyhanger]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Skyhanger
Umm... the problem is the fact the current scienticfic community mostly agrees that the universe is NOT infinite.
There is actually a finity number of galaxies/stars/atoms in our universe.

They might be wrong, but current evidence points to this.

I wouldnt argue with the statement that theres a finite amount of material, but with that material, given a long enough time line, will inevitably recreate an identical arrangement.

Look up entrophy on wikipedia. Our universe will eventually die, and no, our current universe will never return to a same exact state again. There may be other parallel universes out there, but for all practical purposes those are considered seperate universes...

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Einstein Element

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Skyhanger
Umm... the problem is the fact the current scienticfic community mostly agrees that the universe is NOT infinite.
There is actually a finity number of galaxies/stars/atoms in our universe.

They might be wrong, but current evidence points to this.

I wouldnt argue with the statement that theres a finite amount of material, but with that material, given a long enough time line, will inevitably recreate an identical arrangement.

sorry, but no. only if you are thinking about the regenerative theory of the universe (one where instead of the mass at the edge of the universe eventually slows down and the average temperature of the universe will be about 1 degrees kelvin, the universe's collective gravitational pull is strong enough to cause a collapse, and all of the mass in the universe will be brought back to one point- to start another big bang) is there is a possibility that a future cycle will hold the same. but before (if) that happens, in the present cycle, there is not enough energy to cuase this to happen.

Originally posted by: Soccerman06
The only problem is, the universe is cooling down, eventually losing all energy (heat). Once all energy is lost, everything will stop moving and be quite boring.. All energy will disperse into the nothingness we call outerspace. But then again, this is suppose to take a very very long time, something like trillions of years.

the universe is not losing all of its energy. it is just dispersing itself equally across the universe, like a cup of hot water in a big bowl in a football field, verses a cup of hot water spread out on a football field, where the ambient temperature is 0 kelvin. the average temperature will be the same, it will just be spread out.

I would say the total energy remains the same, not the average temperature.

 

[the splat in the hat]

Originally posted by: Jakebrake
Your hypothysis is a philosophical one and not a scientific one about the nature of space-time.

It will just lead to discussions like,? Is a probable impossibility more preferable(or easily explained) than an impossible probability??

you hit it on the head .!!!


holey poo bar thats far out stuff, like the probability of it not happening is like more likely according to science, and what we see in nature, how many times have we tryed to clone identical sheep ? hahaha Lots with only a few correct births the rest defected.
The chances of humans appearing IDENTICAL to our present form is so far fetched when you look at the enviroments that have effected our genes and dna, nature acually shows us that that is very unlikely, or where are the Neanderthals, why havent they come back ?
Why havent we been here on earth before ?
Earth is a 3rd generation planet, we have NO evidence to show ANY life made it as far as us tech wise in history . So what happened there ?
According to the idea put forward there should be infinate Earths. Hell there should be infinate Universes all doing predictable things !
rrrriiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhttttt !

way out there !

On top of that humans have never had computors EVER on Earth before, there are parts on electrical circuits that dont corrode , we have metals that last for eons , plastics, and we have never found a single artifact , yet we can find bones from insects in rocks over 1 million years old, no no sry there just is NO evidence to even suggest that this might happen and seems to be a very flimsy based idea, because from where l sit ,it dont show evidence so it is not even a real thoery.

ok it may be a possibility even if ever so remotely slim so is the bible !
have faith in the bible do you ?
its in the realm of far fetched faith to me !

 

[Xyo II]

[/quote]
I would say the total energy remains the same, not the average temperature.[/quote]

Considering the depth that people here view this, I decided that they might more easily picture a Universe getting colder, where all matter has virtually the same temperature,rather than energy being spread farther apart. Either way you look at it, you're looking at the same thing. Both matter and energy will be few and far between. (energy/temp)

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: Train
If time and space are infinite, is it feasible to say that even the most improbable, is bound to happen?

The universe is not a simple imaginary math equation where you just combine numbers endlessly to get all possible combinations of circumstances and outcomes, because the universe could be infinitely spreading matter and energy apart, so that no recombination happens at all, or only certain limited types of recombination wold occur, this is speculation of course since we don't know.

But I'd say no because (as a silly example) no one believe's christianity would miraculously come true given enough universal time, somethings will ALWAYS be false and impossible because the are inherently contradictory to the evidence and internal logic of the environment, under the rules, internal logic and circumstances dictated by the environment.

 

[velis]

As JakeBrake said, this is really a philosophical question.
Nevertheless, what you assume is probably correct. There's only one problem: You also have infinite possible variations of how our universe would be composed. It is much more probable to have exactly the same Earth in a totally different universe instance though so what you propose is actually "very" probable.

All this does have some major conditions though: time must be infinite, which we can't prove and universes must spawn. If either of those isn't true, you don't have a single chance for your "theory" to work.

Oh, BTW: Universe, as far as our science can see, isn't infinite. But if it was, there would also be infinite number of Earths in it right now with our "duplicates" having copies of this discussion.

I'd rather not touch on some other posts here that are totally wrong and one that clearly shows that the writer doesn't have a clue about the question asked