I got to thinking again

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Rant

Hold on, I'm going to go wait for this computer to magically manifest itself. Bbl.

Now you're just blatantly attacking a strawman. Just because you don't see things rearrange themselves at random doesn't mean they can't. It just means they are incredibly unlikely to happen, whether that mean one over ten, one over a googolpex, or one over (insert one of Jonathan Bowers' creations here). Those would still be chances, which means they can and probably will occur. You are stating the event has a probability of zero, which it does not.

Yes, it's counterintuitive in the extreme. So is all of quantum physics.

I have yet to find a principle within quantum mechanics to be counterintuitive. Your understanding of the rearranging of particles, however, is atrocious. The rearranging of particles does not take place on the scale on which you are describing. A set of particles cannot, out of nowhere, create the macroscopic structures which you are positing that they can. These rearrangements take place on the quantum level. What you are positing, are that things such as nuclear rearrangement which take place within the electron, are capable of forming large scale, physical structures at a whim, and that is simply not the case.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Rant

I have yet to find a principle within quantum mechanics to be counterintuitive. Your understanding of the rearranging of particles, however, is atrocious. The rearranging of particles does not take place on the scale on which you are describing. A set of particles cannot, out of nowhere, create the macroscopic structures which you are positing that they can. These rearrangements take place on the quantum level. What you are positing, are that things such as nuclear rearrangement which take place within the electron, are capable of forming large scale, physical structures at a whim, and that is simply not the case.

You are correct, and I apologize for my earlier misunderstanding of this phenomenon. However, I still argue that cause and effect implies that, in an infinite universe, all possible actions can and will occur. I see no reason to assume this wrong. Reality can be viewed as a many-branching tree of possibilities and outcomes. The many-worlds theory argues each one of these outcomes occurs, but let us look at only one universe - the one we inhabit. What is there to stop all possible outcomes from eventually occurring, given an infinite universe? If this is correct, my original conclusion, though not the method of its extrapolation - that the universe has and/or will have experienced all possible realities - still stands.

---------- Post added at 02:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 AM ----------

Anyway, going to sleep now. Thanks for the argument.

Heat death negates the premise of an infinite universe. We view the universe as infinite simply because of its increasing expansion. Once reaching the point of entropy which causes heath death, the universe inevitably slows, and ceases its expansion. Furthermore, yes, cause and effect likely leads us to the theoretical model of the multiverse based on our decisions, and their outcomes in our inhabited universe, but, this is only true, in our universe, for POSSIBLE occurrences which cam take place within our universe. The manifestation of a computer, out of thin air? Not possible, therefore is not dictated under the presumptions about cause and effect which you have set into place. I also enjoy arguments. Lol.

[NOBLE]

Very interesting questions. For someone to ask "will we be in every possible configuration of matter at some point in the future" or "has each one of us already been to Hell, Heaven, the Star Wars universe, and the Culture, and many variants of each" presupposes we have absolute identities which are absolute even beyond the expiration of our physical bodies. If their position is that we are essentially unique arrangements of particles, those arrangements are definite, and if the same arrangement could be reconstituted in another place or time in the universe (Heaven, Hell, the future), then that would mean WE manifest in those other places and time. My problem with that supposition is that I don't believe our existence or identity is absolute. I believe it is relative. I am not ME simply because of the unique arrangement of particles which constitute my body. If that was the case, that would mean I am a different person than I was this afternoon before I had lunch and added new particles. Or it could mean I am a completely different person that I was from when I was a toddler because since then, practically every cell I had in my body (besides the neurons) have been replaced several times over and I obviously am bigger and have way more particles now. Even if I had maintained the exact same set and arrangement of particles, I would argue that had I not had certain experiences, had I not had certain relationships which formed my identity, I would not be ME despite having the same arrangement of atoms.