Life on other planets?

[lockgar]

Consider this, 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 finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

[Ixion]

I got Star Ocean vibes from that line of thought lol

But shouldn't this go on silly discourse?

[WoottWinds]

I like to think that at some point across the universe, there must be at least one species of hot aliens. If not, then I may as well just be living in some sort of deranged imagination. Life would just not be worth living if years of sci-fi television had been that misleading...

[Ventara]

Your logic is flawed. Just because not every planet is inhabited does not mean there's a finite amount of inhabited planets. It would still be infinite (on the assumption that space and the number of worlds are infinite).

And I don`t think space is infinite. I believe in the Big Bang theory, where space and everything in it are the products of the Big Bang, and that one day, we`ll be (along with the entire universe) sucked back in to the black hole created, where this newly produced mass will explode again and repeat the creation of the universe.

I like to think that at some point across the universe, there must be at least one species of hot aliens. If not, then I may as well just be living in some sort of deranged imagination. Life would just not be worth living if years of sci-fi television had been that misleading...

If you believe that space is infinite, I can tell you there is indeed a planet full of hot aliens. There's also a planet that is exactly the same as this, except everyone has green hair, or a planet where everyone looks like a character from some anime. This is simply because the number of planets would be infinite, and so are the possibilities.

A planet that has a moon made out of actual cheese would be awesome.

[Chaosblade]

The Big Freeze seems more likely than the Big Crunch to me. It's also the only fate of the universe that's possible regardless of what its ultimate shape is, as it's solely reliant on time (and physics, obviously). And crunching in general just seems illogical, isn't the universe expanding more rapidly now than it initially was after the big bang? Unless I'm mistaken, Newton's first law would have to be thrown out entirely in order for the increasingly rapid expansion to not only stop, but reverse. It really makes me doubt the theory of a closed universe in general.

Anyway, yes, the logic in the first post is flawed. The subset in this infinite set is still infinite. For comparison, if you have an infinite set of numbers, if you made a list of all of the numbers that included a 1, you would still have an infinite amount. This mirrors the planets theory as there is nothing inherently limiting life to specific planets (unless you are religious, I guess?), so with an infinite amount of planets, even if only a "fraction" of them sustain life, you are still looking an infinite amount because there is a chance of it happening.

You can have a finite subset for an infinite set, but such a set has to be explicitly stated. In the case of an infinite universe with infinite contents, the only way something could be finite is if it occurred or was created with no possible chance of the event or creation reoccurring. I don't think that's possible within nature, or even at all. The closest thing we have to a finite existence would be a synthetic element, but even those might exist elsewhere in the universe where conditions are different than here on Earth. Who knows.

I think all of the above is correct. Unfortunately, I never got to take any classes that got into this stuff so something (or everything ) may be off.

[lockgar]

If you'd like to know, I can tell you that in your universe you move freely in three dimensions that you call space. You move in a straight line in a fourth, which you call time, and stay rooted to one place in a fifth, which is the first fundamental of probability. After that it gets a bit complicated, and there's all sort of stuff going on in dimensions thirteen to twenty-two that you really wouldn't want to know about. All you really need to know for the moment is that the universe is a lot more complicated than you might think, even if you start from a position of thinking it's pretty damn complicated in the first place. I can easily not say words words like "damn" if it offends you.

[NorseFTX]

If you'd like to know, I can tell you that in your universe you move freely in three dimensions that you call space. You move in a straight line in a fourth, which you call time, and stay rooted to one place in a fifth, which is the first fundamental of probability.

The trippiest thing about this is that when you cross the event horizon of a black hole, you reach a point in which you may move freely in all (3?) dimensions of time, while you only move in a straight line in the dimension of space (namely, towards the center of the black hole).
So...I guess, in a way, you can "travel time" in a black hole the same way you travel space out here. The only problem is that the gravitation is so strong that you probably wouldn't be alive to experience it. XP

[lockgar]

Your logic is flawed. Just because not every planet is inhabited does not mean there's a finite amount of inhabited planets. It would still be infinite (on the assumption that space and the number of worlds are infinite).

And I don`t think space is infinite. I believe in the Big Bang theory, where space and everything in it are the products of the Big Bang, and that one day, we`ll be (along with the entire universe) sucked back in to the black hole created, where this newly produced mass will explode again and repeat the creation of the universe.



If you believe that space is infinite, I can tell you there is indeed a planet full of hot aliens. There's also a planet that is exactly the same as this, except everyone has green hair, or a planet where everyone looks like a character from some anime. This is simply because the number of planets would be infinite, and so are the possibilities.

A planet that has a moon made out of actual cheese would be awesome.

The Big Freeze seems more likely than the Big Crunch to me. It's also the only fate of the universe that's possible regardless of what its ultimate shape is, as it's solely reliant on time (and physics, obviously). And crunching in general just seems illogical, isn't the universe expanding more rapidly now than it initially was after the big bang? Unless I'm mistaken, Newton's first law would have to be thrown out entirely in order for the increasingly rapid expansion to not only stop, but reverse. It really makes me doubt the theory of a closed universe in general.

Anyway, yes, the logic in the first post is flawed. The subset in this infinite set is still infinite. For comparison, if you have an infinite set of numbers, if you made a list of all of the numbers that included a 1, you would still have an infinite amount. This mirrors the planets theory as there is nothing inherently limiting life to specific planets (unless you are religious, I guess?), so with an infinite amount of planets, even if only a "fraction" of them sustain life, you are still looking an infinite amount because there is a chance of it happening.

You can have a finite subset for an infinite set, but such a set has to be explicitly stated. In the case of an infinite universe with infinite contents, the only way something could be finite is if it occurred or was created with no possible chance of the event or creation reoccurring. I don't think that's possible within nature, or even at all. The closest thing we have to a finite existence would be a synthetic element, but even those might exist elsewhere in the universe where conditions are different than here on Earth. Who knows.

I think all of the above is correct. Unfortunately, I never got to take any classes that got into this stuff so something (or everything ) may be off.

For those of you not playing along, that was a hitch hikers guide quote..... sigh.... Your missing a great literary classic

[Ventara]

For those of you not playing along, that was a hitch hikers guide quote..... sigh.... Your missing a great literary classic

I've actually read that book, but expecting one to remember a quote that's hardly memorable (and still is a flawed concept) amongst all the other quotes from all the books one has read, especially if it was years ago, is a bit much. You need to try harder next time.

[lockgar]

(and still is a flawed concept) amongst all the other quotes from all the books one has read, especially if it was years ago, is a bit much. You need to try harder next time.

That was pretty much the entire point of the book. It's one big book of troll physics. How does a statue hold a cup in the air without anything connected to it? With art! Mathematics done in Italian Bistros? Finding the equation for faster then light travel by inverting the equation of how unlikely it is? The entire book is nothing but flawed concepts. That was the point.

I also picked it because it seemed to have the best stand alone ability.