Kilharae
Kilharae t1_j7vkfi0 wrote
Reply to comment by The_Fredrik in What are the chances of me existing in another universe? by letsplay123456789
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.
Kilharae t1_j7vjnk6 wrote
Reply to comment by jaibhavaya in What are the chances of me existing in another universe? by letsplay123456789
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.
Kilharae t1_j7vhqkx wrote
Reply to comment by letsplay123456789 in What are the chances of me existing in another universe? by letsplay123456789
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.
Kilharae t1_j7vh75n wrote
Reply to comment by The_Fredrik in What are the chances of me existing in another universe? by letsplay123456789
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.
Kilharae t1_j7vgv54 wrote
Reply to comment by oswaldcopperpot in What are the chances of me existing in another universe? by letsplay123456789
I'm really not sure what you're trying to communicate here.
Kilharae t1_j7vfhfk wrote
Reply to comment by Thatingles in What are the chances of me existing in another universe? by letsplay123456789
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.
Kilharae t1_j7vb9lw wrote
Reply to comment by Thatingles in What are the chances of me existing in another universe? by letsplay123456789
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.
Kilharae t1_j7vlthl wrote
Reply to comment by The_Fredrik in What are the chances of me existing in another universe? by letsplay123456789
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.