ET Speculation

[CraigS]

Just suppose ...

In an infinite universe, which has existed for infinite time, suppose 6.4 x 10^28 protons, neutrons and electrons, randomly assembled to form an intelligent being, (again), which then invented radio detection. This being then looked for exo-planets, and found one which may reside in a liquid water capable Habitable Zone (LWCHZ), 600 Lyrs distant.

This means that out of approx 3^10^28 possible randomly assembled configurations of sub-atomic particles, at least one instance of radio capable, sub-atomic combinations, is presently known to exist per LWCHZ.

A project called “SETI” looks at the exo-planet with a deep space radio network. They receive no recognisable signals. They conclude a ‘low probability’ that intelligent exo-life exists on that planet .. their search goes on.

How far does mathematical theory say they have to go to find a radio-capable ET being, based on this new evidence ?

3^10^28 x 600 Lyrs = 3^10^28 x 600 x (9.46073 x 10^12) kms
which is approx = (3^10^28) x 10^14 kms.

Anything beyond 62 x 10^9 Lyrs (approx 587 x 10^21 kms), comoving, is beyond causal contact for this radio capable assemblage of sub atomic particles, which live in a LWCHZ. So, based on this new evidence, it seems this particular hypothetical instance of SETI, would never receive intelligent ET radio signals, according to the mathematical concept of ‘The Infinite Universe’, and the known Laws of Physics.



Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Ah.....actually their chances of being able to contact another intelligent assemblage of atoms (this time what appears to be a large slime mold) is actually p=1, or a dead set certainty, give that this particular universe has been in existence for infinite time and is infinitely large. Despite the expansion of spacetime, eventually some scintilla of radio energy will leak over into either entity's comoving frame of reference for the other to detect. In actual fact, the expansion will eventually merge both comoving frames, otherwise we'd never have seen anything beyond the ends of our proverbial noses, so to speak, as every point in spacetime from the outset of inflation would've been within its own comoving frame and cutoff from everything else. Frames of reference must've merged, otherwise our universe would just consist of one spacetime point/particle. So, if we assume that frames of reference merge as spacetime expands, they will eventually come within the others reference frame. It might almost take forever, but it will happen. But by then, the signals might be so attenuated you couldn't tell them from the background noise.

[CraigS]

Fascinating …

In the particular universe of the radio-capable beings (RCBs), their species lifespan is finite, as alas, their Sun will wipe them out shortly … they can't wait !


(There are many contradictions to this one, I reckon .. )

I think I'll live in a finite universe from now on … there are all these limitations … I mean, they have evidence that they live in a flat, infinite universe (no wrap-arounds, eh?) …

Also, the RCBs have noticed isotropic CMBR, which demonstrates causal contact at the very beginning of its own epoch and spacetime chunk !
.. Some RCB dude proposed something called 'inflation' to account for it !

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Fascinating …

In the particular universe of the radio-capable beings (RCBs), their species lifespan is finite, as alas, their Sun will wipe them out shortly … they can't wait !


(There are many contradictions to this one, I reckon .. )

I think I'll live in a finite universe from now on … there are all these limitations … I mean, they have evidence that they live in a flat, infinite universe (no wrap-arounds, eh?) …

Also, the RCBs have noticed isotropic CMBR, which demonstrates causal contact at the very beginning of its own epoch and spacetime chunk !
.. Some RCB dude proposed something called 'inflation' to account for it !

Cheers

There is....the universe the intelligent slime mold lives in is populated by mainly cool planets that are not really to this particular slime mold's liking. Fortunately for them, the laws of physics in this Universe allow them to travel faster than light with relative ease. In the universe where the others live, their planet can get quite hot, which it is at present (34 C and 88% "stupidity") and they want to move to somewhere cooler. The slime molds propose a swap, which is gladly accepted. The slime mold sets up the swap and then it's done. But unfortunately, because of the RSF (relative state formulation), the one of the others which is the most important because they're actually experiencing reality according their PoV, gets left behind in the sweltering heat....and they're not amused!!!!

[CraigS]

Well, in a mathematically defined "Infinite Universe" all things that are "possible", can and will, happen. See this link ...

The possible comprises all ideas that do not violate the most basic and global principles of science (e.g., the second law of thermodynamics; fundamental conservation laws).

further …

A high-surprisal hypothesis may appear impossible from one vantage point, while a different field's paradigm makes it clear that the hypothesis is well within the realm of the possible and merely stretches the limits of plausibility or probability. But only after an idea has run the scientific community's gauntlet--surviving rigorous experimental and interpretive efforts to falsify it--can it be said to move from questions of possibility to a probable or proven status.

Pathological science occurs when an investigator cuts this process short, prematurely trading in scrutiny for advocacy.

Pathological science was outlawed by both species which then paved the way forward for the development of radio technology.

As the two species are assembled from the same sub-atomic particles behaving under the same physical laws, and by the same process of scientific review, the 'idea' of FTL travel was unsupported by evidence and thus deemed not "possible" in either universe. It is thus excluded from the Theory of "The Infinite Universe".

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Ah...but the slime molds were several hundred years ahead of the others and therefore knew that the scientific paradigm the others held onto was in error and not correct in many of its assumptions. Just as some thought the world was flat, so do these less advanced creatures think their laws of physics are inviolate and that they know what the state of play is at. Yes, pathological science had been outlawed, but what is to one lot pathological science is commonplace normality to the other. As the slime molds explained to the others, never assume you have all the answers or know what the facts are because invariably history ends up proving you wrong, no matter how sacrosanct you believe your physics might be. Your knowledge changes over time and therefore your paradigm is shifting all the time. What you consider impossible at one stage may become possible for you at another and conversely what you deemed appropriate science and theory at present may turn out to be bunkum in the future.

Or so the slime mold said

Speaking through an interpreter

[avandonk]

We are all made of assemblages of slime molds. Have you spoken to your liver lately?

Bert

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

We are all made of assemblages of slime moulds. Have you spoken to your liver lately?

Bert

I have, actually. It said it was feeling good, but the heat up here was driving it a bit spare (it's a cool weather one)

It also said its brothers in the other Universe are quite happy for us to come over and pay a visit

[avandonk]

I find the willy the most complex entity as it has no neurons but it has a mind of it's own. It has survival instincts where it retreats against cold and advances towards warmth. It rises at the most inoportune moments.
My neices assure me that they are really handy on a picnic!

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Ah...but the slime molds were several hundred years ahead of the others and therefore knew that the scientific paradigm the others held onto was in error and not correct in many of its assumptions. Just as some thought the world was flat, so do these less advanced creatures think their laws of physics are inviolate and that they know what the state of play is at. Yes, pathological science had been outlawed, but what is to one lot pathological science is commonplace normality to the other. As the slime molds explained to the others, never assume you have all the answers or know what the facts are because invariably history ends up proving you wrong, no matter how sacrosanct you believe your physics might be. Your knowledge changes over time and therefore your paradigm is shifting all the time. What you consider impossible at one stage may become possible for you at another and conversely what you deemed appropriate science and theory at present may turn out to be bunkum in the future.

Or so the slime mold said

Speaking through an interpreter

Sure.
Observation and evidence determines the default state of knowledge.
The default may turn out to be incorrect, and this should be corrected, if there is evidence to indicate otherwise. This is how the advanced slime moulds progressed their own knowledge.

What has not been observed, is not dependable ... this doesn't mean that it is not verifiable, or cannot be inferred using indirect evidence. Invisible exo-slime moulds are not verifiable. Visible exo-slime moulds are, however. Both would seem to be possible. What has not been observed may not be possible, if it violates known physical Laws, (eg: FTL). If it doesn't violate known physical Laws, it may be possible.

If there is causal disconnect, and no physical Laws are violated, then the conjecture may still be possible.

I think

Cheers

[Suzy]

I need a panadol.

[Suzy]

Perhaps you'll find these documentaries interesting.
I've downloaded them but haven't watched yet - they looked good and I also seemingly like to torture my brain with that infinity one..

BBC Horizon- "To Infinity and Beyond (1hr in high def.)
NOVA - "Finding Life Beyond Earth" (1hr 45min in high def.)

I'm a big fan of Nova docs- they are highly informative.

[CraigS]

Suzy;

You've caught me out !

My entire OP was generated from afterthoughts I had after watching the BBC Horizon doco! From your link below, at the 43:22 minute mark, they lead into Max Tegmark's calculation of the distance to meet one's doppelganger in an "Infinite Universe". This is exactly the theoretical basis of the calculation I used in my OP.

I am very prepared to concede that I'm not entirely across the rationale for the seemingly simplistic nature of this calculation (and I have been challenged on it elsewhere), so I've been on the 'hunt' since my OP. Here's some Wiki words confirming what's in the Horizon doco (for those wondering about the calculation). Love Max Tegmark's presentation style, by the way. (Also cracked up at the 'interview' room, which was crammed packed full of so many papers that the creepy interviewees, barely had room to fit in ! )

Whilst its a very high level approximation, there's a lot underlying the seeming simplicity of the calculation. Tegmark's original paper on Parallel Universes explains the details (and there's a lot of them).

I'll have to catch up on the Nova presentation, shortly .. I haven't seen this one yet.

Many thanks for the links … you're really collecting a great library of good docos ! .. Very much appreciated.

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Suzy;

You've caught me out !

My entire OP was generated from afterthoughts I had after watching the BBC Horizon doco! From your link below, at the 43:22 minute mark, they lead into Max Tegmark's calculation of the distance to meet one's doppelganger in an "Infinite Universe". This is exactly the theoretical basis of the calculation I used in my OP.

I am very prepared to concede that I'm not entirely across the rationale for the seemingly simplistic nature of this calculation (and I have been challenged on it elsewhere), so I've been on the 'hunt' since my OP. Here's some Wiki words confirming what's in the Horizon doco (for those wondering about the calculation). Love Max Tegmark's presentation style, by the way. (Also cracked up at the 'interview' room, which was crammed packed full of so many papers that the creepy interviewees, barely had room to fit in ! )

Whilst its a very high level approximation, there's a lot underlying the seeming simplicity of the calculation. Tegmark's original paper on Parallel Universes explains the details (and there's a lot of them).

I'll have to catch up on the Nova presentation, shortly .. I haven't seen this one yet.

Many thanks for the links … you're really collecting a great library of good docos ! .. Very much appreciated.

Cheers

Hi Craig,

I had a quick look at Tegmark's paper.
Unfortunately I couldn't find the mathematical derivation behind this calculation, so I'm cynical.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Hi Craig,

I had a quick look at Tegmark's paper.
Unfortunately I couldn't find the mathematical derivation behind this calculation, so I'm cynical.

Regards

Steven

Well blow me down !
I'm shocked ! ....

(Not really ... just kidding ! )

I think I'm starting to understand how he's done this..

If I picture a bubble-within-a-bubble model then ...

If every combination of possible arrangements of sub-atomic particles in our obs universe are laid out surrounding our own arrangement, and then this super-pattern repeats, then to get to the next equivalent universe to our own, (in the adjacent, or surrounding, super-bubble), one could say as a crude estimate, one would have to transit each individual arrangement within our own super-bubble. (This doesn't acknowledge that our position in our super-bubble might result in a closer proximity to the position of the equivalent universe in the surrounding super-bubble .. but I think that's OK, because there are so many arrangements, that this 'error' is swamped in comparison).

This then results in the number of arrangements times the diameter of our own obs universe. The number of arrangements is huge, compared with the diameter of our obs universe, so we can forget the obs universe figure.

Its a really crude average estimate, I think ... call it a 'field-engineering estimate', as distinct from what a more precise mathematician would come up with

I share your skepticism if I look for precision .. but I can see his point.

Check this out (from Wiki):

Tegmark has also formulated the "Ultimate ensemble theory of everything", whose only postulate is that "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically". This simple theory, with no free parameters at all, suggests that in those structures complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically "real" world. This idea is formalized as the "Mathematical universe hypothesis" in his paper The mathematical universe, a short version of which was published as Shut up and calculate.

See the part underlined ... I think this guy must be from a pure mathematics background !

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Well blow me down !
I'm shocked ! ....

(Not really ... just kidding ! )

I think I'm starting to understand how he's done this..

If I picture a bubble-within-a-bubble model then ...

If every combination of possible arrangements of sub-atomic particles in our obs universe are laid out surrounding our own arrangement, and then this super-pattern repeats, then to get to the next equivalent universe to our own, (in the adjacent, or surrounding, super-bubble), one could say as a crude estimate, one would have to transit each individual arrangement within our own super-bubble. (This doesn't acknowledge that our position in our super-bubble might result in a closer proximity to the position of the equivalent universe in the surrounding super-bubble .. but I think that's OK, because there are so many arrangements, that this 'error' is swamped in comparison).

This then results in the number of arrangements times the diameter of our own obs universe. The number of arrangements is huge, compared with the diameter of our obs universe, so we can forget the obs universe figure.

Its a really crude average estimate, I think ... call it a 'field-engineering estimate', as distinct from what a more precise mathematician would come up with

I share your skepticism if I look for precision .. but I can see his point.

Check this out (from Wiki):
See the part underlined ... I think this guy must be from a pure mathematics background !

Cheers

If one uses the analogy of a multiverse represented as a froth or a sponge with each individual cell a Universe, then a sphere of a given radius will include a number of Universes. If our Universe is at the centre of this sphere then one can argue the larger the radius the greater the probability of including a "duplicate" Universe.

However when Max Tegmark comes out with statements like:-

You probably find this idea strange and implausible, and I must confess that this is my gut reaction too. Yet it looks like we will just have to live with it, since the simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that this person actually exists in a Galaxy about 10^10^29 meters from here.

Clearly Tegmark has gone beyond statistical considerations. There is obviously some advanced mathematics beyond statistics in order make such a prediction.

Frankly the only cosmological model I can see that fits this requirement is an infinitely old Universe such as described by the Steady State theory.
Tegmark is a Big Banger.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Perhaps I've been watching too much of the BBC Horizon Program, but I think I understand his rationale.

The primary influencing factor here, is the assertion that in an Infinite Universe, anything which is possible, no matter how small the probability, will eventually happen ... and has already happened, infinitely many times over.
They spend a lot of time on the infinite monkey/Shakespeare's works thing and come to the conclusion that the monkey will succeed. Then, there will also be infinite monkeys typing randomly, ad infintum, as well. No matter how small the probability of it happening, because of the influence of the concept of infinite expanse and time, it will all eventually happen.

If one accepts this paradigm (of a truly infinite universe), then a duplicate world to our own, which is certainly possible, will exist. I'd say this is a prediction of assured existence .. it all comes from infinite mathematics (not that I've attempted any such proofs, specifically ...).

Its all about taking infinity to the extreme.

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Perhaps I've been watching too much of the BBC Horizon Program, but I think I understand his rationale.

The primary influencing factor here, is the assertion that in an Infinite Universe, anything which is possible, no matter how small the probability, will eventually happen ... and has already happened, infinitely many times over.
They spend a lot of time on the infinite monkey/Shakespeare's works thing and come to the conclusion that the monkey will succeed. Then, there will also be infinite monkeys typing randomly, ad infintum, as well. No matter how small the probability of it happening, because of the influence of the concept of infinite expanse and time, it will all eventually happen.

If one accepts this paradigm (of a truly infinite universe), then a duplicate world to our own, which is certainly possible, will exist. I'd say this is a prediction of assured existence .. it all comes from infinite mathematics (not that I've attempted any such proofs, specifically ...).

Its all about taking infinity to the extreme.

Cheers

This is the problem with Big Bang universes, a single monkey doesn't have an infinite time to produce Shakespeare's works.

As far as an infinite number of monkeys given a finite time I suppose one can draw comparisons with a multiverse with an infinite number of universes with a subset of an infinite number of exact duplicates to ours. (Cantor would have been delighted to contemplate this).

Then we have the problem that all these universes are beyond our particle horizon, so their existence is a matter of faith.

Regards

Steven

[DJDD]

if it takes an infinite number of monkeys an infinite amount of time to write a shakespearean play, how long would it take half that number?



really, i think the use of monkeys by mathematicians is extremely distressing...

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by DJDD

if it takes an infinite number of monkeys an infinite amount of time to write a shakespearean play, how long would it take half that number?

really, i think the use of monkeys by mathematicians is extremely distressing...

It will still take an infinite time.

Here is something for you to contemplate, if you were able to half your set which contains an infinite number of monkeys into a subset, both the original set and subset, contain the same infinite number of monkeys.

Mathematicians refer to both sets as countable infinite sets.

There are uncountable infinite sets which are "larger" than countable infinite sets.

Regards

Steven