Discussion Being conscious/alive doesn't make mathematical sense

[LostZombie]

So with the best scientific understanding of our current universe being alive and consciousness doesn't make sense.

Here is why; if we want to take the probability of the likeliness of something happening in time it must be time of event over total time. So since we did not exist for infinity, and will continue to not exist forever after this life.

infinity + infinity = infinity

and lets say we have 80 years of life that would be

80
---- = 0
infinity

So the chances we are alive are not near zero but just plain, and simply zero
Even if the infinity before we lived was negative infinity + ( -infinity ) = 0
and that would be a dividing by zero.

This also applies if we have set beginning to the universe since

Infinity - 13 billion = infinity


I only have 2 ideas on how this could work

A. Ground hog day, but with a memory wipe
In if the universe is infinite in size everything that can happen will an infinite number of times

B. Quantum immortality
Any quantum action will essentially puts you in the universe you live in



Thoughts?

 

[Hystearical]

Thoughts?

I'm hungry.


(=p)

 

[Pluto]

 

[8hsjyd]

Probability, I think, is a mistaken way of viewing this and can result in the conflated or confusing results you've expressed. While the existence of space-time and atoms arranging in such a manner so as to be conducive to life and so on is statistically improbable as a statement of fact, that doesn't mean it didn't occur and that consciousness doesn't exist. Experience alone indicates the presence of something, be it consciousness or not, regardless of any aforementioned improbability. Similarly, while I have indeed heard the notion of the universe being 'conscious' a few times, I don't believe that claim is a anywhere near a ubiquitously accepted view within the scientific community. I also think it may be using the word 'conscious' in a manner which is different from how it's used in relation to animals/humans.

Theories of consciousness are rather dubious generally with lots of different competing theories and infighting between them. If you've an interest in the topic I've heard good things of the academic textbook Consciousness: An Introduction 4th Edition by Susan Blackmore and Emily T. TrosciankoI which goes over all primary theories. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Library.) Often, with controversial, confusing, and popular scientific matters such as consciousness and quantum mechanics, I think it's of best effort to consult merely academic, peer-reviewed writings because there are, quite frankly, some loons out there :P. Otherwise, it could be of benefit to simply enjoy life as it is without stressing too hard over the why and how. Often we can lose ourselves in these matters of trying to understand particularities rather than actually enjoying things for what they are.

 

[LostZombie]

I'm hungry.

Hi hungry I'm mom

 

[Hvergelmir]

Thoughts?

Infinites is an indication that your model is wrong.
I'd argue that infinities doesn't exist in reality. Even if they do, math and physics break down.

What you try to calculate is the likelihood of a small timespan 80, overlapping an instant of an infinite timespan.
There's however an infinite amount of such timepans, and the likelihood is equal for all of them. The amount of 80-year timespans overlapping an instant in time, is also infinite.

The likelihood of you being alive at an arbitrarily chosen instant on an infinite timeline is infinitesimally small.
But we're not sampling arbitrarily on an infinite timeline. You're sampling during the brief moment you are alive. The likelihood of you being alive during the brief timespan you're alive, is 100%.

A. Ground hog day, but with a memory wipe
In if the universe is infinite in size everything that can happen will an infinite number of times

Big assumption with two infinities. It's an untestable hypothesis.

B. Quantum immortality
Any quantum action will essentially puts you in the universe you live in

I think you're just inventing a physics law. "Quantum" does not explain the thesis.

 

[LostZombie]

Infinites is an indication that your model is wrong.
I'd argue that infinities doesn't exist in reality. Even if they do, math and physics break down.

I disagree, Infinities do exist as we see with black holes; They have infinite density, but that does not make them break the laws of physics (depending on who you ask). Along with that quantum fluctuations are shown to happen even in the most desolate places in the universe the closest we can see what their behaviors is in the heat death state showing that even when nothing exists things will still happen for infinty.

What you try to calculate is the likelihood of a small timespan 80, overlapping an instant of an infinite timespan.

It does not matter the number, a finite number divided by infinity equals zero

There's however an infinite amount of such timepans, and the likelihood is equal for all of them. The amount of 80-year timespans overlapping an instant in time, is also infinite.

Yes that is very true, since if we are to assume that time will go on infinity then all things that can happen will happen including this life an infinite number of times.

I think you're just inventing a physics law. "Quantum" does not explain the thesis.

Haven't you heard of quantum immortality? it's similar to Schrödinger's cat, but you are the cat: its part of the many worlds interpretation where you are in the world that survives every time the slot machine is pulled so to speak.

Big assumption with two infinities. It's an untestable hypothesis.

I don't disagree, even I'm unsure of this one.

 

[Hvergelmir]

Infinities do exist as we see with black holes

We have not seen infinities in black holes. Our currently best models for black holes end up with infinities, and it's highly problematic.
Infinities tend to propagate and break everything else. Quantum Gravity, is trying to solve that.

Haven't you heard of quantum immortality? it's similar to Schrödinger's cat

Those are thought experiments. They're not observed, not testable, and doesn't solve the problem you're asking about.
Schrödinger's cat was an attempt to discredit QM, by showing the bizarre implications of taking it literally.

By introducing multiple universes you just add another dimension of infinite possibilities. Your problem remains the same.

 

[Dejected 55]

I think your math is flawed. At the least, whenever you deal with multiple infinities you introduce known unknowns. While math attempts to quantify infinities sometimes... 1/infinity and 2/infinity and 80/infinity might be "ok" to decide as virtually 0 depending on the situation... you can't always work the problem that way.

A good example of this is... Define the limit of (1+1/x)^n as n goes to infinity. You might want to decide 1/n approaches zero so the problem becomes 1^infinity, which is one... but you'd be wrong to make that assumption. The truth is, 1/n never quite goes to zero so you're always adding something to the one... so it will approach infinity itself when raised to the infinity power.

Meanwhile... the logic is flawed because we are in fact here. You can't say we "don't make sense" because we are here. Probability is a bad predictor of future events but people keep using it that way, incorrectly. Probability only attempts to describe the most likely future outcome given all known previous outcomes.

For one, we don't know all previous outcomes. For all we know, with near infinite space, there are infinite civilizations that are so far apart from each other that we will never know. And even if not... unlikely things happen all the time. Hence why we have probabilities and not certainties. It is very rare to define something as a certainty, which means there is nearly always a probability of almost any outcome.

I could go on, but I'm sure this is boring.