the number of things that don't exist is vastly greater than the number of things that do. Therefore, statistically speaking, you don't exist. Any evidence to the contrary is just the product of your diseased, nonexistent, imagination.
"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 any people you may meet from t
I know thats meant to be funny, but the logic is wrong. You might say:
It is known that there are an infinite number of numbers. However, not every one of then is even. Therefore, there must be a finite number of even numbers. etc.
That's like proving that there is an infinite number of fives in the set of natural numbers by pointing out that the natural numbers are an infinite set. The Douglas Adams quote is full of precisely that kind of mistake, but in the end the joke is that the average number of inhabitants per planet may very well be zero.
You're wrong too. There may be only one inhabited world, or two, or any number, or an infinite number, and you can only know by exhibiting every world, or the probability of the appearance of life.
For example, there is an infinite number of numbers. Among them, there is an infinite number of prime numbers, but there is only one number that equals 2.
Check the grandparent again. Specifically "there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds."
They are each taking logically contradictory positions. Therefore one of them must be correct. And the grandparents is wrong, the subset of an infinite set can be infinite - it does not have to be finite.
Not necessarily. You seem to be suffering from the infinity fallacy, "an infinite set necessarily contains all humanly conceivable elements." This is trivially incorrect: Consider the set of all integers. No matter how long you look, you will never find "1.5". It's not in there.
An infinite set does not necessarily contain all humanly conceivable elements. It is certainly possible that despite an infinite number of worlds, this is the only one inhabited by intelligent life. We can say with confidence then t
1) If there are an infinite number of worlds, then out of the possibilites there is a world that has the power to destroy all worlds already. 2) This world is still here. 3) Therefore, there are NOT an infinite number of worlds.
Corollary:
1) If there are an infinite number of worlds, there is a world where someone doesn't want you to ever exist. 2) You exist. 3) Therefore, there are NOT an infinite number of worlds.
1) If there are an infinite number of worlds, then out of the possibilites there is a world that has the power to destroy all worlds already.
Do you have any proof that it's possible to have the power to destroy all worlds? Is it even possible that 10% of the worlds have the power to destroy themselves along with 9 other worlds each?
No, I have no such proof. In fact, I suggest that I have proof (via logic itself) of the opposite: that such a "destroy-all" power cannot exist if there are infinite possibilities of universes.
Although on second thought, I'm confusing the issue of infinite quantity versus infinite possibilities. My argument does make the point that there are constraints on how different worlds can be (i.e. there can't be a world that has the power to destory all others), but even if "we" all play by the same laws of physic
And by that same logic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Best Post Yet -eom- (Score:2, Funny)
Re: And by that same logic... (Score:2)
Re: And by that same logic... (Score:0)
It is known that there are an infinite number of numbers. However, not every one of then is even. Therefore, there must be a finite number of even numbers. etc.
Re: And by that same logic... (Score:3, Insightful)
If there are an infinite number of worlds, then there will (by the nature of infinity) be an infinite number of inhabited ones as well.
Sorry.
Re: And by that same logic... (Score:0)
Re: And by that same logic... (Score:0)
For example, there is an infinite number of numbers. Among them, there is an infinite number of prime numbers, but there is only one number that equals 2.
Re: And by that same logic... (Score:2)
Re: And by that same logic... (Score:0)
They are each taking logically contradictory positions. Therefore one of them must be correct. And the grandparents is wrong, the subset of an infinite set can be infinite - it does not have to be finite.
Re: And by that same logic... (Score:2)
An infinite set does not necessarily contain all humanly conceivable elements. It is certainly possible that despite an infinite number of worlds, this is the only one inhabited by intelligent life. We can say with confidence then t
There are not an infinite number of worlds (Score:2)
Main Argument:
1) If there are an infinite number of worlds, then out of the possibilites there is a world that has the power to destroy all worlds already.
2) This world is still here.
3) Therefore, there are NOT an infinite number of worlds.
Corollary:
1) If there are an infinite number of worlds, there is a world where someone doesn't want you to ever exist.
2) You exist.
3) Therefore, there are NOT an infinite number of worlds.
This big of logic brought to yo
Re:There are not an infinite number of worlds (Score:0)
1) If there are an infinite number of worlds, then out of the possibilites there is a world that has the power to destroy all worlds already.
Do you have any proof that it's possible to have the power to destroy all worlds? Is it even possible that 10% of the worlds have the power to destroy themselves along with 9 other worlds each?
sorry black mage, there is no "destory-all" spell (Score:2)
Although on second thought, I'm confusing the issue of infinite quantity versus infinite possibilities. My argument does make the point that there are constraints on how different worlds can be (i.e. there can't be a world that has the power to destory all others), but even if "we" all play by the same laws of physic
Re:And by that same logic... (Score:2)