Math Proves Infinite Universes Exist — Brian Greene

[John Clark]

Math Proves Infinite Universes Exist — Brian Greene

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

eg2

[Brent Meeker]

His argument seems to be if infinite universes exist then many astounding and preposterous things will be true...and won't that be neat.  Just because physics theories are unintuitive doest mean all unituitive theories are physics.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2SygU3zkBtMMQbOq3Uv0koG8Cy%2BhLkSqsL88TvGByO8g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 5:02:46 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

His argument seems to be if infinite universes exist then many astounding and preposterous things will be true...and won't that be neat.  Just because physics theories are unintuitive doest mean all unituitive theories are physics.

Brent

I used to think that one can measure the curvature of the our universe in order to determine if it is finite or infinite in spatial extent. But this is impossible. It could be spherically finite but so large that it will be measured as flat with some very tiny error. But we can never determine whether that tiny error is caused entirely by measurement error, or partly by its slight curvature. That is, we can never be sure that the error is due entirely to imperfect measurements. Thus, we can never determine via measurement if the universe is finite or infinite in spatial extent. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/4/2025 4:27 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 5:02:46 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:

His argument seems to be if infinite universes exist then many astounding and preposterous things will be true...and won't that be neat.  Just because physics theories are unintuitive doest mean all unituitive theories are physics.

Brent

I used to think that one can measure the curvature of the our universe in order to determine if it is finite or infinite in spatial extent. But this is impossible. It could be spherically finite but so large that it will be measured as flat with some very tiny error. But we can never determine whether that tiny error is caused entirely by measurement error, or partly by its slight curvature. That is, we can never be sure that the error is due entirely to imperfect measurements. Thus, we can never determine via measurement if the universe is finite or infinite in spatial extent. AG 

Science is never being able to say you're sure.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 7:02 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> His argument seems to be if infinite universes exist then many astounding and preposterous things will be true

And his argument is logically 100% airtight. And you don't need infinite universes, just one infinite universe can also produce preposterous things. I think it would be preposterous if physicists ignored such a possibility. 

 

> and won't that be neat. 

I think so. You don't? Do none of the infinite number of Brent Meekers that inhabit an infinite universe find nothing of interest and wonder in all that vastness?  

 

> Just because physics theories are unintuitive doest mean all unituitive theories are physics.

True, but it's also true that when we find a new fundamental physics theory to replace one of our old ones it's going to be unintuitive and very very odd because otherwise we would have already found it. Nobody is ever going to be able to get rid of the weirdness that is inherent in Quantum Mechanics. And it's an odd quirk of evolution that emotionally most bipedal hominids are not frightened by infinity,unless they think about it too deeply, but very large finite numbers are instantly and viscerally scary.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

rt

[Alan Grayson]

Aren't we imposing weirdness into QM when it's claimed that a system in a superposition of states, is simultaneously in all states defining the superposition? AG 

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 7:27 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I used to think that one can measure the curvature of the our universe in order to determine if it is finite or infinite in spatial extent. But this is impossible. It could be spherically finite but so large that it will be measured as flat with some very tiny error.

With the discovery of Dark Energy in the late 1990s the link between geometry and the fate of the universe is not as clear-cut as it once seemed to be. Even if the universe has a positive curvature it could still be infinite and expand forever, it depends on the total energy density of the universe including the contribution made by Dark Energy, and nobody knows if Dark Energy is constant or changes with time, although very recently there have been hints that it may do so.

> Aren't we imposing weirdness into QM when it's claimed that a system in a superposition of states, is simultaneously in all states defining the superposition? AG

If you are unsatisfied with just being able to predict the outcome of a quantum experiment and want to have a mental picture of what's actually going on then that picture is, by necessity, going to be weird. If it's not weird then your mental picture would not be consistent with experimental results, and then what's the point of having a mental picture at all? 

[Alan Grayson]

What is the argument affirming that a system in a superposition of states, is simultaneously in all states defining that superposition? AG

[Alan Grayson]

What's the argument against the interpretation that a system in a superpositon of states, has some probability of being in any of the states of the superposition? AG

[Alan Grayson]

The latter is the ignorance interpretation of the superposition of states. I once understood the argument against it, but now I can recall what it was, or is. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/5/2025 4:12 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 7:02 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> His argument seems to be if infinite universes exist then many astounding and preposterous things will be true

And his argument is logically 100% airtight. And you don't need infinite universes, just one infinite universe can also produce preposterous things. I think it would be preposterous if physicists ignored such a possibility. 

 

> and won't that be neat. 

I think so. You don't? Do none of the infinite number of Brent Meekers that inhabit an infinite universe find nothing of interest and wonder in all that vastness?  

You seem to be under the misapprehension that an infinite universe implies multiples of interesting phenomena, like Brent Meeker.  Just because it's infinite doesn't mean everything or even every interesting thing occurs.  That may just be wishful thinking.

 

> Just because physics theories are unintuitive doest mean all unituitive theories are physics.

True, but it's also true that when we find a new fundamental physics theory to replace one of our old ones it's going to be unintuitive and very very odd because otherwise we would have already found it. Nobody is ever going to be able to get rid of the weirdness that is inherent in Quantum Mechanics. 

It's not as all hard to get rid of.  All you have to do is work with long enough and your intuition incorporates it.

And it's an odd quirk of evolution that emotionally most bipedal hominids are not frightened by infinity,unless they think about it too deeply, but very large finite numbers are instantly and viscerally scary.

I'd have to see some survey results before I believed that.  But if true it's not hard to understand.  "Infinity" is just a word and doesn't bring to mind any image.  It's just like those Republican Congressmen who would be incensed if their mortgage debt were increased $10,000, but are quite complacent in the face of increasing the national debt $3.5 trillion.  A trillion dollars is just too big to comprehend.

Brent

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

rt

 

Math Proves Infinite Universes Exist — Brian Greene

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3MoasQwif1bkvxR79pr8GxQ_OaHQVowHeKG5AXO0nHtQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 4:39:05 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

Math Proves Infinite Universes Exist — Brian Greene

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

Keep in mind there's a school of thought that mathematics should not include infinite anything. I'll provide a reference in the near future. AG 

eg2

[Alan Grayson]

Try this;  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlnBo3APRlU

Difficulties with Dedekind cuts | Real numbers and limits Math Foundations 116 | N J Wildberger

eg2

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 7:02 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote

 > it's an odd quirk of evolution that emotionally most bipedal hominids are not frightened by infinity,unless they think about it too deeply, but very large finite numbers are instantly and viscerally scary.

> I'd have to see some survey results before I believed that.

I don't have a survey I can cite to back up my claim, to my knowledge such a study has never been made. However I know that some people, even some very distinguished physicists, have no problem at all with an infinite universe, but react with the utmost horror at the thought that string theory, and its 10^500 different landscapes, might actually be real.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

x44

 

[Brent Meeker]

Is "utmost" that level of horror you express when contemplating superdeterminism?

Brent

[Quentin Anciaux]

Don't you think that a theory claiming there is one unique specific history that conspires against you every time you make a measurement to reproduce the correlations is exactly what deserves to be called silly?

What else would be?

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b6104680-0e1e-4334-97d1-39851f56e7d5%40gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

No sillier than imagining everything happens.

Brent

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAomzxDJN0eeVwPPU2-VqPhNgN_3mEBaN9VOkQqGqM207Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Quentin Anciaux]

Brent,

I actually find it far less extravagant to say everything allowed by the equations happens, rather than claiming reality is perfectly constrained to only one path that hides all alternatives.

To me, saying all possibilities exist is simpler than assuming a giant cosmic conspiracy to exclude them.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0191f6b4-850a-4152-83a2-217a6d6894bd%40gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

Why limit it to the equations we've found to describe our world?  Why not go full Bruno Marchal?  I'm just amazed that people invest this kind of belief in metaphysics.  It's just neo-Platonism.

Brent

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kArpSfY1S5uszUSFWk%2BCuzfnf7f3K%3Dc_OQd-ZaHgVf%3Dx_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Quentin Anciaux]

Yes, I am fully in the Bruno Marchal perspective, not the standard MWI, and I’ve been clear about that for years. My recent essays only restate what I’ve consistently said: reality as the totality of computations, with physics as an emergent phenomenon. It is indeed a form of neo-Platonism, but for me it’s the only framework that coherently links physics and subjective experience.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7bc3d663-f804-4bea-8db0-f6d24ca73255%40gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

But then why limit it to computations?  Why not assume everything, computation or not?  Then all possible computations will still be there, emergent, but also other sequences we haven't even imagined.  After all, what is "allowed by the equations" depends on rules of inference that we make up and there are alternative rules: ZF and ZFC for example or more radically look at Graham Priest's dialetheism.  

Brent

[Quentin Anciaux]

My intuition is that computation is the minimal, unambiguous ground because it doesn't depend on any particular axiomatic system to define what counts as an execution trace. Once you assume arithmetic, even in a very weak form, you get the set of all computations in the sense of partial recursive functions or universal dovetailing.

If you say everything, including non-computational or contradictory structures, you open the door to any conceivable ontology, but then it becomes unclear what selects or measures anything at all. That's the part that feels too unconstrained to me, you lose any stable link between what is describable, executable, and experienceable.

In other words, computation is not just what the equations allow, since as you point out those depend on axiomatic choice, but rather what is invariant across any formal system capable of encoding the natural numbers. It's the minimal shared canvas. Beyond that, maybe everything exists in some sense, but it's hard to see how such a framework could connect to any coherent notion of experience or probability.

If you're curious, I've tried to lay this out in more detail in some recent essays on Medium.

https://allcolor.medium.com/the-sapiens-attractor-manifesto-2d934d4813d0

https://allcolor.medium.com/computational-consciousness-temporal-compression-and-the-unique-attractor-e2057cb69bc4

https://allcolor.medium.com/linking-finite-perceptual-spaces-fractality-and-the-god-loop-b85e39172726

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4785647b-387f-4a8a-993e-6cf42761e830%40gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/6/2025 2:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

My intuition is that computation is the minimal, unambiguous ground because it doesn't depend on any particular axiomatic system to define what counts as an execution trace. Once you assume arithmetic, even in a very weak form, you get the set of all computations in the sense of partial recursive functions or universal dovetailing.

If you say everything, including non-computational or contradictory structures, you open the door to any conceivable ontology, but then it becomes unclear what selects or measures anything at all. That's the part that feels too unconstrained to me, you lose any stable link between what is describable, executable, and experienceable.

In other words, computation is not just what the equations allow, since as you point out those depend on axiomatic choice, but rather what is invariant across any formal system capable of encoding the natural numbers. It's the minimal shared canvas. Beyond that, maybe everything exists in some sense, but it's hard to see how such a framework could connect to any coherent notion of experience or probability.

If you're curious, I've tried to lay this out in more detail in some recent essays on Medium.

https://allcolor.medium.com/the-sapiens-attractor-manifesto-2d934d4813d0

You're too easy on yourself.  It's ok to define God as an endpoint of recursive moral refinement.  But then what is that?  What is the "moral refinement" operator and how does it act on itself.  You list moral axioms: compassion, justice, and truth but it is obvious that these three are not axioms of any moral caculus and in fact are perfect a candidates for paraconsistent logics.  It is commonplace that it can be the moral and compassionate thing to do, to lie to someone and it may also serve justice.  And justice and compassion often clash.  So the the reputed attractor, if it exists, must something like a moral quantum superposition of these things you're labelled "axioms" but are only components of morality.

You also just glide over the fact that morals are motivations and like other motivations have evolved per Darwin.  If you're going to explain how these attractors work in reality, not just theory, you need to explain the natural selection of morals, which implies extinction as well as convergence.  Bertrand Russel wrote an essay in which he said that the development of nations would on the whole lead to the dominance of liberal democracy and he cited history in support.  I maintained that optimistic viewpoint until recently.  But now I see former liberal democracies succumbing to populist dictator's  

I my comment on the other two links later.  It's time to entertain my grand daughters now.

Brent

https://allcolor.medium.com/computational-consciousness-temporal-compression-and-the-unique-attractor-e2057cb69bc4

https://allcolor.medium.com/linking-finite-perceptual-spaces-fractality-and-the-god-loop-b85e39172726

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le dim. 6 juil. 2025, 23:37, Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> a écrit :

But then why limit it to computations?  Why not assume everything, computation or not?  Then all possible computations will still be there, emergent, but also other sequences we haven't even imagined.  After all, what is "allowed by the equations" depends on rules of inference that we make up and there are alternative rules: ZF and ZFC for example or more radically look at Graham Priest's dialetheism.  

Brent

On 7/6/2025 2:26 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Yes, I am fully in the Bruno Marchal perspective, not the standard MWI, and I’ve been clear about that for years. My recent essays only restate what I’ve consistently said: reality as the totality of computations, with physics as an emergent phenomenon. It is indeed a form of neo-Platonism, but for me it’s the only framework that coherently links physics and subjective experience.

Quentin 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le dim. 6 juil. 2025, 23:19, Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> a écrit :

Why limit it to the equations we've found to describe our world?  Why not go full Bruno Marchal?  I'm just amazed that people invest this kind of belief in metaphysics.  It's just neo-Platonism.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4785647b-387f-4a8a-993e-6cf42761e830%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAo%3D2ajAWKNFJuQ%2BeYbp8w9_WUrzZnQPVfkhsdHtgdhK5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Quentin Anciaux]

Hi Brent,

On moral refinement, I don't see the attractor as a convergence of clean axioms like compassion, justice, and truth. These often clash irreducibly, and any stable attractor has to reconcile that tension between fragmentation and integration. Systems can oscillate between cooperation and domination, but such oscillations are not indefinitely stable. Eventually they drift toward collapse or deeper coherence.

This is why in the Author's Notes I emphasized that the Sapiens Attractor isn't a deterministic prophecy. It is the informational consequence of recursive modeling and mutual understanding when given enough time and complexity. Recursive empathy means modeling others modeling you modeling them, creating increasingly sophisticated mutual understanding that eventually encompasses all perspectives.

Even highly coordinated power regimes, like Leto II in Dune or historical empires, are bottlenecks, not endpoints. They look stable, but remain shallow attractors that fail to integrate the recursive empathy needed for lasting resilience.

If reality is the total trace of the Universal Dovetailer, then every possible computational trajectory is instantiated somewhere. Even destructive paths or local stagnation are contained within the broader recursion. From that perspective, the Sapiens Attractor is omnibenevolent by definition, because it eventually encompasses and reintegrates all perspectives. Omnibenevolent not because it's inherently 'good', but because it necessarily integrates all possible perspectives, including suffering, conflict, and resolution.

It is a limit, not a guaranteed outcome in any specific local history, but in the infinite combinatorial space, every degree of convergence must appear.

Natural selection operates on local timescales. The Sapiens Attractor operates on informational timescales, it includes all possible evolutionary paths, not just the ones that survive locally.

Regards, 

Quentin

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/98a1e724-bb54-4bfc-b704-ba00e0cc6f5b%40gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 3:33 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> some people, even some very distinguished physicists, have no problem at all with an infinite universe, but react with the utmost horror at the thought that string theory, and its 10^500 different landscapes, might actually be real.  

> Is "utmost" that level of horror you express when contemplating superdeterminism?

No because when it comes to superdeterminism infinity probably comes into play, not tiny finite numbers such as 10^500.  

I like this quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy when Arthur is shown the factory floor where custom made planets are constructed: 

"The car shot forward straight into the circle of light, and suddenly Arthur had a fairly clear idea of what infinity looked like. It wasn't infinity in fact. Infinity itself looks flat and uninteresting. Looking up into the night sky is looking into infinity - distance is incomprehensible and therefore meaningless. The chamber into which the aircar emerged was anything but infinite, it was just very very big, so that it gave the impression of infinity far better than infinity itself."

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

fa8

 

[Alastair]

Greene's YT statement that 'we don't even know how to formulate physical laws without assuming time exists' has an overlap with my own interest area: why did nature choose *our* physics (including the probably spacetime-originating Big Bang), or indeed any physics at all? One can speculate that the answer is because this physics is one of the most prolific in terms of production of stable self-aware intelligences (ssai), so that we are most likely to find ourselves in such a world. This fits to the idea that we appear to be governed by the simplest physical laws that are consistent with the evolution of such intelligences. Under this view, nature would only be limited by what is logically possible, and in terms of ssai evolution by what can make sense to its inhabitants, so potentially being mathematically modellable. (This idea is not the same as those of Tegmark's mathematical structures, computationalist models, or modal realism.)
Ultimately the aim would be to see if it is possible to use the method of comparative complexity to formally prefer simpler variants of theories of quantum gravity say, by analysing each of the function structures involved; this would not only determine the one most likely to be correct but also clarify whether the simplest versions of potential component theories (QM and GR in this case) will have to be modified into a QG-compatible form even at the expense of more complexity, in order to make the overarching theory simpler.

Alastair