-- Posted by medjai at 8:25 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 Assume a new model of the universe. 1. Infinite space. 2. From our planet, we can observe 9 other planets in the immediate area (for a total of ten planets in our space 'region'). 3. We observe 9 planets in each region immediately bordering our own. 4. Eight planets beyond that one. 5. Seven planets beyond that one. So on and so on until we no longer see any planets, we do not have the technology to observe beyond the regions where there are only three known planets in each. Is there an infinite number of planets in this model of the universe? -- Posted by Juggalotus at 8:33 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 Well theoretically that would be correct. If there is truly infinite space then there would by theory be infinite planets. -- Posted by Rastafarian at 8:33 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 Wouldn't that depend upon the amount of regions there are? I mean, like how many regions border ours? and so on... Onc could assume that the next regions beyond our view would have two, and then one it would seem. -- Posted by medjai at 8:44 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 Assume infinite regions. -- Posted by Jay JWLH at 8:44 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 If the addition of more planets decreased by each region bordering our own, I believe we would have a number but I destroyed my maths books so you will have to figure that part out. My quickest calculation would have to be 362880. -- Posted by medjai at 8:45 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 Onc could assume that the next regions beyond our view would have two, and then one it would seem. Why could one assume that? What if right after the regions with three planets, there are regions with four, or seven, or seven million? -- Posted by Rastafarian at 8:54 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 I think there would be a number, but it alll depends on the amount of regions that border each subsequently decreasing region... until of course you end up amoungst the regions with no planets amoung them. Then any region after that is inconsequential as to the amount of planets there are.              |10| - region 1                9     9 |10| 9 - region 1 and 4 region 2...          9 and so on. But alternatively look like this.        9|9    9 |10| 9        9|9 All regions still border the region that came before, but there are more of them... And so on. -- Posted by gregorymahony at 9:02 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 Its a silly question as its non answerable.We don't know, but as technology advances hopefully we will.However, welldone on thinking about intelligent subjects. -- Posted by gregorymahony at 9:02 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 nvm lol -- Posted by gregorymahony at 9:02 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 i thought you were referring to our universe -- Posted by telomere13 at 9:08 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 I have absolutely no idea what this problem is trying to say. So we have no idea how many planets are in a particular region, just how many we observe?  If so that means there must be at least the observed number of planets in any region, but there could be any higher number.  Thus the answer is not a definitive "no;" it's either "yes" or "impossible to determine."  The description of the geometry seems pretty vague to me and so I'm pretty confused here, but as long as we know there aren't an infinite number of regions within 3 "layers" then we can safely say that it's possible that we're observing all of the planets in existence and that that number is finite.  Thus the number can be both finite or infinite. Am I missing something here? -- Posted by medjai at 10:14 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 My question is whether or not infinite space necessitates an infinite number of planets assuming some can be observed in a quantum universe. -- Posted by telomere13 at 10:17 pm on Jan. 8, 2007 I don't believe so, no. -- Posted by myystic at 4:46 am on Jan. 9, 2007 If we're assuming infinite space, we're assuming we can't explore all of it. Therefore, I cannot give a definative answer. -- Posted by libertine at 10:32 am on Jan. 9, 2007 People tend to assume that trends continue throughout, so in our own universe, we can see galaxies scattered about, and we assume that there's no reason why they shouldn't be scattered about everywhere. The obvious trend in your model is 2 then 1 plantes, so I guess people will assume that until they learn better. -- Posted by Apotheosis at 4:35 pm on Jan. 9, 2007 If space is infinite, there will be an infinite amount of anything, over a long enough (infinite) amount of time. -- Posted by medjai at 1:39 am on Jan. 11, 2007 Why can't something just not occur in an infinite environment, even though feasably it 'could'. -- Posted by Apotheosis at 6:14 am on Jan. 11, 2007 This is, again, assuming an infinite amount of time. Events with non-zero probability but with very low probability (say, one in a quintillion) don't happen much. But if you had, say, a quintillion regions for that event to happen (assuming it's a region-wide event that requires a region to occur), then it's much likelier to occur. Further, if you have one hundred quintillion regions, it's likely to happen one hundred times. So, if you have an infinite amount of space, it's likely to happen an infinite amount of times--as is any event with non-zero probability. -- Posted by telomere13 at 7:17 pm on Jan. 11, 2007 But we don't know that the probability of a planet occurring in any region is nonzero or non-infinitesimal.   -- Posted by medjai at 12:25 am on Jan. 12, 2007 So then in an infinite environment, probability does not exist because everything that can occur has a 100% chance of occurring infinite times, and anything that does not occur is simply impossible via the very nature of infinity? -- Posted by telomere13 at 2:34 am on Jan. 12, 2007 Quote: from medjai at 2:25 am on Jan. 12, 2007 So then in an infinite environment, probability does not exist because everything that can occur has a 100% chance of occurring infinite times, and anything that does not occur is simply impossible via the very nature of infinity? Or so it would seem.  But what if each planet is completely random and there are an infinite number of of possible planets.  Then, given an infinite number of planets what are the odds that you'll get a planet that's exactly the same as a randomly chosen planet.  I unfortunately have no idea as to what to do with such a situation.   I suppose whether or not you're guaranteed to find an identical planet depends on "how infinite" the number of planets there are is compared to "how infinite" the number of possible planets is would determine this, but beyond that I don't know.  I suspect it would be some kind of set theory problem (the cardinality of the set of all possible planets compared to that of the set of planets in the universe?) but it seems vaguely reminiscent of some basic calculus involving infinite limits and growth rates.  I don't know because I don't even know how you'd begin to define that type of infinity. It's interesting to think about though because who knows if, given an infinite of time, the universe is bound to be in exactly the same state that it's in now? In the case of your original post though I still contend that it's impossible to tell simply because there's no reason to assume that the probability of their being a planet outside of what you can observe is anything other than just plain zero, and if it's zero then no matter how infinite the amount of space is another planet will never occur. -- Posted by Apotheosis at 8:11 am on Jan. 12, 2007 However, if there is any reason to believe it is nonzero, given infinite time passage, it's all infinite. Set theory would be relevant in a determinate time frame. -- Posted by telomere13 at 9:08 am on Jan. 12, 2007 Quote: from Apotheosis at 10:11 am on Jan. 12, 2007 However, if there is any reason to believe it is nonzero, given infinite time passage, it's all infinite. Set theory would be relevant in a determinate time frame. I guess the fact that it's a quantum universe means that it's possible for a planet to exist outside the observable area, but that also means that in a finite time frame there would be a finite, if small, probability of a planet coming into being as well. Regarding my last post I we're all going to live forever in some sense.   There must be a range of states of matter that allow for us to be our own conscious selves (if that even means anything at all), because our bodies vary in physical makeup as we live, and so the probability of matter existing in that same state some time again after our death is greater than zero.  Given an infinite amount of time we're all bound to be back sometime.   Although the fact that this also means that an infinite number of times we're also going to come in to existence in conditions far less favorable than the ones here is not a particularly comforting one. -- Posted by Apotheosis at 9:21 am on Jan. 12, 2007 Alternatively, we'll also come back in more favorable conditions, and the exact same conditions, and perhaps even surrounded by huge penises.