Ok, that makes sense. I would agree that for any truly random circumstance, when given infinite iterations, all possible combinations will eventually occur.
I agree with all of that. But the bigger point is that there are things that can’t/won’t happen that we can’t predict, so this means we can’t assume that “there must be a universe in which X happens to me”.
Well, but if there are other “me”s, then there must be some set of common events that must occur in each universe containing a copy of me in order for that individual to qualify as me. In that case, isn’t it entirely possible that those particular things that must be in place preclude certain other possibilities that make it such that there is no chance that some otherwise conceivable events could occur?
I think Cantor would say you need a proof for that. And I think he would say you can prove it via generating a new real number by going down your set of real numbers and taking the first digit from the first number, the second from the second, third from third, etc. Then you run a transformation on it, for example every number other than 1 becomes 1 and every 1 becomes 2. Then you know that the number you’ve created can’t be first in the set because its first digit doesn’t match, and it can’t be the second number because the second number doesn’t match, etc to infinity. And therefore, if you map your set of whole numbers to your set of real numbers, you’ve discovered a real number that can’t be mapped to a whole number because it can’t be at any position in the set.
Some will say this proves that infinities can be of unequal sizes. Some will more accurately say this shows that uncountable infinities are larger than countable infinities. But the problem I have with it is this: that we begin with the assumption of a set of all real numbers, but then we prove that not all real numbers are contained in the set of all real numbers. We know this because the number we generated literally can not be at any position in the set. This is a paradox. The number is not in the set, therefore we don’t need it to map to a member of the other set. Yet it is a real number and therefore must be in the set. And yet we proved it can’t be in the set.
I’m uncomfortable making inferences based on this type of information. But I’m also not a mathematician. My goal isn’t to start an argument. Maybe somebody who’s better at math can explain it to me better.
Serious question: Can somebody explain to me, if an infinite number of universes exist, why do we assume that every possibility must exist within the set? Like, why can’t it be an infinite number of universes in which OP does not win the lottery?
When I was in middle school in the mid ‘90s, the school library decided to go digital. They installed a bunch of computers with what they called “a boolean search system”. For the first time, you could search for a book by topic in the library and, after a bit of a wait bc computers were pretty slow back then, you’d get a list of results.
Well, us being kids, on the very first day, somebody decided to search for “book”, which of course matched every single book in the library and therefore created enough system load to lock up those poor mid-‘90s computers to the point that they required a hardware restart. IIRC this system was on some kind of a network too and I believe it would also lock up the network such that the other computers couldn’t use the system either. I didn’t know much about such things at the time.
Anyway, word got around immediately and so every single time a class came to the library, somebody would search “book” on a computer to see what would happen and lock up the whole system for hours. This went on for weeks with the punishment for searching “book” on the “boolean search system” becoming more and more severe, and then I moved to a new state so I unfortunately do not know how this story ended.
Remember when he “stepped down” and hired a CEO?