Jump to content

Jack Jectivus

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About Jack Jectivus

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Philosophy

Recent Profile Visitors

228 profile views
  1. It's intuitive. The vast majority of universes would consist of an atom or two, but all those with sentient life will have enough mass for at least one instance. Smaller mass universes are more likely, so the mass would tend towards enough for a single instance.
  2. This is is not an argument against the existence of alien life or an argument for the premises. This model is purely speculative. The goal of this work is more so to give an example of a falsifiable model built from non falsifiable claims. If alien life were contacted, and if one of the claims were proven, then it would falsify the other with some level of certainty. This model is designed to contextualize bubble multiverse theory in respect with the cosmology of individual mass formation and the existence of alien life. The fact of the matter is, no one will be convinced by this. That's not the point.
  3. You misunderstand the logic here. Under these assumptions all values for Ω will exist in the multiverse, but larger ones will be far outweighed by smaller ones when selected randomly (not by quantity, but by probability, of course). Therefore, a randomly selected universe with a specific trait is likely the minimum mass needed for that trait to exist. If that trait is a sentient being, then that universe will likely be the minimum size needed for sentient life to exist. Sentient life, under these assumptions, will find itself in a universe that is the minimum mass for it to exist, leaving no room (I go in more detail in the work) for sentient life beyond the species that is already there. In short, sentient life will more often be alone in its universe, but it will always find itself in a universe with mass sufficient to contain at least one instance. The point of this work isn't very clear apparently. Definitely something for me to add. This is not an argument for the model of those premises.
  4. The model is the two premises: 1. The universe exists in a bubble multiverse 2. Every unit of mass at the beginning of the universe had probability of existing that was a certain independent constant
  5. Supposing that the logic in this work is reliable, then IF there is a multiverse and IF every unit of mass at the beginning of the universe had probability of existing that was a certain independent constant, then sentient alien life is almost certainly non-existent. If, then, alien life were discovered, it would prove that the two assumptions upon which this model is based can't coexist. That is to say, either the premise that there is a multiverse is untrue, the premise that there was an independent mass constant is untrue or both are untrue. To prove the positive that one of them is true would indirectly prove the negative of the other. Even this is not a new idea; there is a reason I haven't made this a publishable paper. This is not an argument for any model. This is simply a demonstration of that kind of logic applied to alien life and cosmology.
  6. Keep in mind, this is not an argument against the existence of alien life. This model is purely speculative. The goal of this work is more so to give an example of a falsifiable model built from non falsifiable claims. If alien life were contacted, and if one of the claims were proven, then it would falsify the other with some level of certainty. This model is designed to contextualize bubble multiverse theory in respect with the cosmology of individual mass formation and the existence of alien life. The fact of the matter is, no one will be convinced by this. That's not the point.
  7. Perhaps the most important scientific debate is the one over whether or not we are alone in the universe. The possibility of alien life has been argued about for hundreds of years because of its significance in our place in the universe as a species. Unfortunately, there is virtually no way of determining the answer to this question without going out and searching every corner of the universe for aliens. In this paper, a model of the big bang is built which is incompatible with alien life and is, therefore, either valuable for offering an answer to whether sentient aliens exist, or valuable for being falsifiable in the case that sentient alien life is discovered. Assume there are infinite bubble universes, and that the probability of each unit of mass forming in a big bang is a constant independent value in all universes. These two intuitive assumptions create a model of the origin of the universe that is falsifiable because it directly contradicts the existence of sentient extraterrestrial life, therefore, if sentient beings from another planet are contacted, the two assumptions upon which this model is based can't coexist. Through this method of using falsifiable models to find which assumptions can coexist and which can't, a complete model of the origin of our universe might be made out. If there is a bubble multiverse, and the mass of each universe at its formation is a random amount determined by the exponential probability P^Ω, P being the individual probability of a given unit of mass exploding into existence and Ω being the mass of the universe in mass units corresponding with P, then universes with greater masses become exponentially less likely. If a single electron mass has a P value of 0.5, for example, then a universe with our mass is twice as likely to form as a universe with our mass plus a single electron. If a universe has a mass equivalent to 10¹⁵ mass units, it has a P^(10¹⁵) probability of forming. If the P-value for a given mass unit is 0.9, that is, a single mass unit has a 90% chance of existing at a universe's big bang, then the probability of a randomly selected universe out of the infinite multiverse having that mass is 7.4918669 × 10^-45,757,490,560,676. There is nothing, on neither the atomic nor the cosmic scale, that can be used to put in perspective how astronomically tiny that value is. Approximately 1 in every 1.3347808 × 10^45,757,490,560,675 randomly selected universes will have the mass 10¹⁵ units when P is equal to 0.9. Using this logic, smaller universes are many times more likely to form than larger ones, though all possible Ω values will exist in an infinite multiverse. For every universe with a mass of 2 units, there are 1/P with a mass of 1. If P in this example is 1/10¹⁵, there will be 1,000,000,000,000,000 universes with a mass of 1 unit for every single universe with a mass of 2 units. This means that any universe with a specific trait is almost certainly the minimum size a universe can be while still containing that trait. This brings the discussion to the Weak Anthropic Principle, which states that sentient life will always find itself in a universe seemingly finely tuned for its existence, even if the conditions for its existence are extremely unlikely because life can never find itself in a universe that isn't perfectly balanced for its existence, even if that type of universe is infinitely more likely. This logic can be adapted to the model of the universe proposed by this paper. If life will inevitably find itself in a universe that can support it, regardless of how unlikely the conditions of that universe are, and that sentient life is a trait which will nearly always occur in as small a universe as possible, then we can assume that our universe, despite its incredible mass, must be the minimum size a universe with sentient life can be. The universe, under this model, must be as small as possible right down to the electron for sentient life to occur. Different instances of sentient life would tend to be alone in their universes, surrounded by the minimum amount of mass needed to form enough solar systems to make the probability of life emerging higher than the probability of every universe with a higher mass, rather than be contained in the same universe. The expression P(Ω)^x determines the probability of a given universe having x occurrences of a trait, with P(Ω) representing the probability of a universe with the minimum mass needed for a single occurrence of said trait. In a given universe, the emergence of sentient life relies on a balance between how accommodating the universe is for life (that is, how many planets on which life could potentially emerge there are) and how likely the universe itself is to form, or P^Ω. If the universe is more accommodating then it stands to reason that it is less likely to form, because more mass is needed in a universe that has more star systems with planets that could potentially develop life. Life will more often find itself in internally unaccommodating circumstances than a universe large enough to be internally accommodating. That is to say, relating to the last paragraph, if 1 in 10 Earth-like planets bear sentient life, then those 10 planets will be spread across 10 universes rather than be contained in just one. One of the universes they are spread across will have sentient life which could look at every planet in its universe and conclude that, since no other planet besides theirs is earth-like, 100% of Earth-like planets will harbor life. In reality, only 10% would, but life will usually occur in a small universe where it is unlikely (one where there is only one earth-like planet), rather than a large universe where it is likely (one where there are 10 earth-like planets). The balance between the accommodability of the universe and the probability of the universe will nearly always be struck where there is only one occurrence of a planet with sentient life. Therefore, under this model, we can conclude that earth is almost certainly the only planet that bears sentient life in the universe. But how certain can we be? What is the probability of a universe with two Earth-like planets that bear sentient life versus a universe with just one? This is a difficult question to answer because the exact value for both P and Ω are unknown, but we can make estimates. Our universe's minimum possible mass, or the mass of the observable universe, is roughly 10⁵³ kg, or about 5.586592 × 10⁸² MeV/c². If we assume that the probability of one MeV/c² of mass forming at the big bang is 1%, then the calculation for our universe's probability is 0.01^(5.586592 × 10⁸²). This value is equal to the number of universes with twice our universe's mass for every universe with a mass equal to ours, and presumably the number of universes bearing two instances of sentient life for every universe with just one instance, because the number of occurrences x (in this case the number of times a planet with sentient life emerges) is the exponent of P(Ω). In this example x = 2, therefore there are P(Ω)² universes with 2 instances of a sentient life-bearing planet for every P(Ω) with just one. P(Ω)² ÷ P(Ω) = P(Ω), therefore for every single universe with one planet that bears sentient life, there are P(Ω) universes with two. P(Ω) in this example is a fraction so impossibly tiny that it can not be put in terms of even the astronomically tiny example in paragraph 2. With the assumptions made, there are 10^(-1.1173184 × 10⁸³) universes with 2 instances of sentient life for every universe with a single instance. With this calculation, with the assumptions made, there would be 10^(1.1173184 × 10⁸³) universes like ours, where there is only one earth-like planet bearing life, for every universe with 2. The value 10^(1.1173184 × 10⁸³), made with forgivingly conservative estimates, is so large that it could not be written out in the base-10 format if every atom in the universe were converted into enough ink to write a single digit because you would run out of ink by the time you had completed 0.1% of the task. Of course, this value is just an estimate, but it does justice to the main thesis which is that we are almost certainly alone in the universe under the model described. If sentient alien life were to be contacted, it would prove that the assumptions made in this model can not be simultaneously true.
  8. He can not and should not. I wouldn't like seeing my social media platform do something like this, but I fully endorse their freedom to do it. Even if he was stopping something bad, he'd be setting a dangerous precedent.
  9. This is funny and all, but is this really the place for tiktok compilations that don't offer any actual arguments?
  10. Police who abuse the power we trust them with are not only attacking an individual, they are attacking the social contract. I believe that a police officer who knowingly perverts justice in this way should life in prison with no chance of parole, along with any of his fellow officers who stood by when they could've helped.
  11. If a flammable mass is exposed to a heat equal to or greater than its flash point, assuming that the stoichiometry is correct, it will burn. Even if there's no flame, as long as it's heated to a high enough temperature, it will burn. It would break down into ash and smoke first, then those will become plasma as they're heated up more.
  12. Religiousness doesn't correlate with higher intelligence worldwide
  13. I do not consider myself religious anymore, but when I did I committed myself to objectively defending my belief. It was my philosophy that if something is true then math, science, and reason will support it. Even today I see religion as a valid explaination for what seems unexplainable. I don't believe that it's the best explaination, but I grant that it is defensibly valid. Who knows? Maybe we'll find the bearded man someday. Until then, I'm gonna assume nothing. I'm not religious, but I often think that simulation theory (excluding Bostrom's hypothesis, though that has its own issues) is a conveluded reimagining of Deism or even Theism in some versions
  14. I believe that free will is incompatible with both a religious and secular model of the universe. Our actions can be predicted, and are determined by our experiences. The decisions we make very depending on our personalities, our values, and the situation we find ourselves in. If our actions can be traced back to material root causes, our actions themselves are perfectly predictable. If our actions are perfectly predictable then they are predetermined.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.