Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Seek_Equilibrium t1_jc81w1w wrote

Reply to comment by python_hunter in A philosophical dive into “Everything Everywhere All at Once” by Azmisov

Not a single thing in that comment “corrected” what I said previously. I made a point only about infinite sets without natural orderings. I didn’t even argue whether an ordering can be given for an infinite multiverse. I noted that their response is interesting and potentially valuable for providing such natural orderings on infinite multiverses.

The point I made stands: if we cant find natural orderings for infinite multiverses, then we can’t meaningfully talk about the frequencies or proportions of universes within the multiverse. Their comment is germane to the antecedent (“if we can’t”). If they’re right, then we can indeed find natural orderings for infinite multiverses, so the consequent doesn’t necessarily apply.

1

HortenseAndI t1_jc9kdc8 wrote

Y'all are getting worked up about comparing countable infinities. There are other ways to have 'most' of an infinity - e.g. there are more non-rational reals than rationals because the former is uncountable

1

Seek_Equilibrium t1_jc9kzge wrote

You’re talking about cardinalities of infinite sets, which is not directly relevant to defining proportions or frequencies of the elements within an infinite set.

1

HortenseAndI t1_jc9t1yj wrote

I mention it because the relevant passage in the original article is "you cannot have “most” of infinity. The only scenario where it somewhat makes sense is where a finite number of worlds evolved life, but an infinite number did not.", which is blatantly untrue given that you can compare infinite sets with different cardinalities. My point is there's no need to get hung up on the probability space of countably infinite sets to comfortably assert that that's nonsense, which is what was happening here

1