h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I agree. The argument has a couple of holes in (Bels' point about an infinite number of cards is right), but isn't that bad.

Mathematical bit: Given an infinite number of chances, anything with a fixed non-zero probability of happening at each chance will eventually occur. Monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare. All that.

Although Olber's Paradox does not deal directly with the theory in my article, I have included it. If anyone has any other links which would relate to my article, whether positive or negative, please post them so I can add them to the article.

I value advice on which changes need to be made to the article.

Grand Moff Adon, your article can't go into the Edited Guide because it doesn't base on facts entirely. At least not in the current form. And, since the Internet doesn't seem to know your 'Infinite Amount of Everything Theory', I doubt that you could do something about it. Sorry.

The disclaimer of your article doesn't make sense: As I said, infinitely close to something *is* something. The only value that is infinitely close to 100 is 100 itself. If you then substitute 'X' for every occurence of 'infinitly close to X' you see that it doesn't make sense.

If the universe is infinitely big, this doen't necessarily mean that you find arbitrary things in it. You've been misguided here. The reason for this is that there are certain boundary conditions that must be met: The conservation of energy and other quantities, the finite velocity of everything, and probably other things.

Granted, an infinite amount of chances means that everything with a probability greater that zero will happen eventually. But infinite space doesn't imply infinite chances, and of course it doesn't mean arbitrary natural laws.

If the universe is infinitely big, *and* no area in this universe is special in any respect (ie total homogeneity) your theory may work; however I'm to lazy/stupid to find this out. But infinite space and total homogeneity contravenes at least the big bang theory which is fatal for your theory.

Re: no entries on infinity - well A593552 shows up on the second page of results of a search... Its about infinities in mathematics. I have to say I've yet to see much of a definition for some other sort of infinity.

At least in mathematics, infinite does *not* mean without beginning or end. The set of the natural numbers is infinite, and certainly does have a beginning.

Re: the quotation from Trateotu (whoever that is):
"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds."
Any (non-zero) fraction of infinity is still infinity.

Well, you just found one of the 4±1 mistakes in that excerpt!

By the way, TRATEOTU denotes 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe' by Douglas Adams.

You said: "But infinite space and total homogeneity contravenes at least the big bang theory which is fatal for your theory."

Fatal how? The big bang theory is just a theory as well. Both big bang and this infinity theory cannot both be true but who says its not big bang that is wrong? This theory is possible, unlikely, but possible all the same.

Yes, I was too harsh in this point.

It's just that this was yet another problem in a row of problems that I have with this entry, and the Big Bang theory is one of the robust parts of cosmology.

... but not 100% certain, of course.

Though this doesn't have to do with my article, let me say that I find the Big Bang theory doesn't really explain anything as far as the makings and existence of the universe, which is what it was supposed to explain. Therefore I have little faith in the "big bang" theory.

First of all, it says that all the matter in the universe was around before the Big Bang. It says that that matter was pulled together by gravity until all the universe's matter was compacted into an incredibly dense and tiny speck, which eventually was pulled together so tightly that it exploded. Now, if we had all of the universe's gravity together in one tiny spot, I doubt that it would explode. On the contrary, we'd just have a huge black hole, with more gravity than any of the black holes we suspect are in existence combined...how then could the matter fly away from it?

Also, my comparison to drawing cards from a non-infinite deck is valid.

If you drew a card at random from a deck and replaced it randomly an infinite number of times, you would eventually draw all 52 cards. The deck only needs to be 52 cards, not an infinite amount of cards, because the deck represents all the possible combinations of elements, which would be finite. The deck would not be infinite unless there are an infinite number of types of elements in the universe and an infinite number of combinations thereof which would produce certain circumstances. I assume in the article that there are a finite number of both such things, so there are only a finite number of things that can be found in an infinite universe. However, that can still be alot of things...practically anything imaginable that is physically possible to exist.

Anyway, you are right that an infinite amount of space doesn't mean an infinite amount of chances. Would it help the theory at all if I added the assumption that the universe is more or less homogenious when looked at in its entirety, besides the assumption that it is infinite?

I don't know that. Maybe then it works, maybe not.

However, the Edited Guide is not the right place for a personal theory. There are possibly numerous places on h2g2 for such a thing, but not the Edited Guide.

It would be different if there was something about it on the Internet though.

I don't see how someone else having thought the same thing makes it more suitable for the EG, and anyway I'm sure i've heard this theory before (not just in TRATEOTU). I guess we need an italic to decide if it is suitable.

It's not suitable because the EG should contain facts, and we must be *sure* that they are facts. In this thread nobody seems to be sure.

'I'm sure i've heard this theory before' -- Highly probably texts concerning this exist. But I don't think they are equally general. And, where are they?

'I guess we need an italic to decide if it is suitable.' -- I think in two of my posts I said 'my subjective personal humble opinion', I can't make it more careful and can't include that into all of my posts. But on the other hand, many people seem to read this thread, and nobody could resolve my doubts so far.

The current situation is: There is consent that in the current form the article is flawed, but nobody knows how to correct it. While I still think that it's an interesting subject and not misguided by principle, I'm afraid we've got suck here.

Ok, maybe we need to create a new review forum for theories. That would solve everything. (I go over to the feature sugestions in a minute)

But before this thread is moved, can a sugest a change of title? The current one is not very good.

Don't hurry. I don't think that this article will be moved soon. When I look at the lower end of Peer Review threads then I see much clearer candidates for removal.

Hi all,

not real my field, this, but one thing in the thread really surprised me:

"the assumption that the universe is more or less homogenious when looked at in its entirety, besides the assumption that it is infinite?"

Aren't 'in its entirety' and 'it is infinite' mutually exclusive assumptions?

just a naive question from an ill-informed internaut.

cya
spiff

I don't think so, no. An infinite thing can be the same all the way through, there would just be an infinite amount of that same thing.

Although looking at an infinite thing in it's entirety IS a bit tricky.

Noggin

Looking back at some of the posts, I see that there seems to be the belief that a number infinitely close to zero IS zero.

This is, of course, false.

A positive number is a number greater than zero.

A positive number divided by a positive number is always a positive number.

One is positive. Infinity is VERY positive. One divided by infinity is infinitely close to zero, and yet it is positive, so it is greater than zero. A number cannot be zero and be greater than zero at the same time.

As an example, imagine a hypothetical universe that had an infinite amount of planets. Now imagine that only ten people inhabited this universe. The average population of each planet (10 divided by infinity) would be infinitely close to zero. This number, when multiplied by infinity, would equal ten. If this number were zero, instead of being infinitely close to zero, then when you multiply it by infinity you would get zero, which is not correct since we have alread stated that there are ten people living in this hypothetical universe.

I don't know if my metaphors help your understanding, or confuse you...I can only hope they help.

hi again,

Tango said: "An infinite thing can be the same all the way through, there would just be an infinite amount of that same thing."

Well, how can the 'finite' notion of 'all the way through' (or indeed 'entirety') apply to a supposedly 'infinte thing'?

Forgive my lack of understanding. Perhaps it is because you are talking about sums and i am thinking about things...

cya
spiff
*not losing any sleep over the question, generally*