An Infinite Universe

Suppose there exists a universe that’s infinitely large in both time and space, and having the same laws of physics as ours. Let’s also assume these laws are the same in every region of the universe.
Does it logically follow that: “if something is possible to be true in said universe, then it is true in the universe”?
e.g. It’s possible that there is a yellow planet inhabited by slugs who eat strawberry cake for breakfast so there is a yellow planet blah blah blah.

I think not, but I’m unsure with concepts like infinity.
Don’t ask where I found this, I don’t remember. Read somewhere that it’s true.

1 Like

Love that guy. Thanks for the video.
Close, but not quite what I meant. The universe in my topic is singular and uniform in it’s laws unlike the ones from multiverse theory. The objective is to explore what being “infinite” would imply within certain constraints.

I suspect that there are constraints and not everything is “possible”. For example, I doubt what we know as jellyfishes can live in the core of a sun, or swallows can fly in and out of a black hole.

But I guess that as long as something follows the laws of physics and other boundaries, anything MAY be possible.

Personally, after I discuss “possible”, I prefer to wander into the realm of “but is it probable?” Unfortunately I suck at math, and too lazy to compile enough data to predict all of the possibilities of all or even specific events.

Not sure how slugs can bake a cake without arms.

1 Like

It’s worse than that, imo:

Probably seems pretty heavy. But what it is basically saying is that more or less what you suggest must happen in finite time!

PS: I forgot that the theorem requires the postulate that particles are confined to a finite region; and your thought experiment might not have that attribute. Something to think about.

1 Like

As far as I’m aware truths cannot be assumed or argued into existence. The exception is mathematics where such concepts as truth and infinity have different meanings than in physics. Or so I’m told.

As for the truth claim: We don’t know that. Reasonably sure a physicist would not make a claim of truth, nor would mot other scientists.

1 Like

If it was infinitely large, it would be our universe. So, of course it would have the same physical laws.

Does it logically follow that: “if something is possible to be true in said universe, then it is true in the universe”?

You have not demonstrated that it is possible. How do you know it is possible. Asserting it is not impossible is not the same thing as demonstrating possibility. Possibility must be demonstrated or there is no reason at all to consider it.

Things are either possible or impossible. So you assert there are yellow slugs on a yellow planet that eat strawberry cake for breakfast. My question is… “How do you know this?”

“Well, it’s not impossible. The universe is a big place?” I did not ask you if it was impossible. I asked you how you came to the conclusion that there were “yellow slugs on a yellow planet.”

“Because its not impossible.”
“And how did you determine this?”
“Slugs exist. Planets exist. Yellow exists. Strawberry cake exists. Breakfast as a concept of a first meal in the morning exists. So I just crammed them all together and said, it’s possible.”

"No, you said, “it’s not impossible.” Even if I agree that it might not be impossible, that does not make it possible. Just cramming ideas together in any random way you like.

The real problem here is that you are dealing with infinities. This is a unique set of problems. Why The Infinite Monkey Theorem Might Really Be False | Nur mein Wort

Calling it possible in no way means it will ever happen. That which is actually possible, requires demonstration to be possible.

1 Like

True dat.
Not sure either LOL

Recurrence in finite time and space. Who woulda thought. This is interesting, thank you.

That’s correct. There’s already the assumption that the universe is infinite and that all laws are definitely uniform so it’s more like a math problem in the guise of a physical one. A thought experiment as Nyarlathotep said.

You’re right of course-
Infinite monkey theorem huh…wow, that’s pretty much it.
Link was helpful :smile:
Thank you very much.

Unfortunately, that is an incorrect statement. It is constructed on the fallacy of elimination. It is folly to assume “we have thought of all possibilities”.

What if, for example, this entire universe is just a fart from a pixie? We can neither prove nor disprove it, so that proposition is on the table and not eliminated. I can think of thousands of what may be considered silly propositions, and each person in this forum can also think of thousands. How do we examine and eliminate so many, especially if they can not be proven nor disproven, as illustrated by my pixie fart example?

Science does not attempt to disprove, it attempts to prove. That is how alternate explanations are negated.

1 Like

@David_Killens And yet, this is the logic of theists, who come on here and troll. SIGHS

1 Like

And that is why an acute atheist never states they do not believe a god does not exist. They state that they do not accept the existence of the god that is presented and defined by the one who proposes a god.

1 Like

@David_Killens For me, I neither believe nor disbelieve in God’s existence, because I simply do not know for certain, whether or not God exists. Then again, even if God existed, I could care less, since His/Her/Its existence does not affect me in any way, because I am not going to change anything.

What I do know for a fact, is that the traditional omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God of the theists, no longer makes any sense to me, and is unintelligible. And thank “God” for that.

That is why I included " the existence of the god that is presented and defined by the one who proposes a god."

Some theists define their god as the entire universe. Some say it is outside the universe, which begs the question: are they on drugs?

@David_Killens To refer to the universe as “God”, in a pantheistic sense, adds nothing to the universe, or to the knowledge that we have gleaned so far, about the universe. It is superfluous, at best.


The Process of Science
Science makes progress using a series of steps which are called the scientific method. This method ensures that our understanding of the world gradually increases, and any faulty assumptions or conclusions are eventually weeded out. The main parts of the scientific method are:

Hypothesis : an idea, or educated guess, that can be tested. It is often good to have several, alternative hypotheses because at this early stage you do not know which hypothesis is correct.

Prediction : a logical consequence of a hypothesis.

Experiments* are often designed to disprove the hypothesis. This is because it is much easier to disprove a hypothesis than to “prove” it. A single experiment can show that an idea is wrong, but a thousand experiments do not prove that an idea is always correct. For example see: Scientific method

The experimental group differs from the control group usually in one variable eg testing new medications. For example to test a new medication you divide patients into two groups. The “experimental” group are given the new drug, and the “control” group are either given the old (currently used) medication or a placebo. Placebo : a pill or injection that contains no medication. Placebo effect

Blind trials mean that the subject of the experiment (the patient) does not know if they are in the experimental group or control group, only the technician knows this. A double-blind trial means both the subject and the technician do not know which group the subject is in. Drug companies use double-blind trials to test new medications.

Animal models, like rats and mice, can be used to test new drugs or conduct experiments. Rats and mice are mammals, like us, so many drugs that are toxic to them would also be toxic to humans.

Correlations, or relationships between two variables, can indicate a connection. For example, people with higher stress levels have more colds. (Fig 1.11). However correlation does not mean that stress actually causes the cold. The cold is caused by a virus. Stress lowers your immune system, so it is harder for the body to fight the virus.

Sample size : when you conduct a scientific experiment, the larger the sample the more accurate the results.

Theory : a scientific theory has been supported by many experiments: like atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory, and the theory of evolution. Note that this is very different from the common use of the word theory. In everyday life, theory just means a vague idea or guess, whereas a scientif

1 Like


Every day I learn more.

LOL – Like I didn’t make the same mistake before I figured it out?