[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But an infinite number of universes would just be a waste of probability space, as you'd have repeating scenarios with minimal differences that are redundant on large scales.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were infinitely many universes, and assume that you can break find sets on the order of 1000000:1 where there are minimal differences that are redundant on large scales, and partitioned the infinitely many universe set along those bounds to get a set of these universe supersets, you would still have infinitely many universe supersets

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. A percentage of them would not be expressable, and would not take form. They would have null results. Knowing the percentage would be pure speculation but I wouldn't be surprised if it was astronomically high. It does allow for a continual state of growth tho.

Structures within structures. I think it's a problem of sets, supersets and megasets, and on upwards. Each case would still be infinite, but the high likelihood of results that don't bear fruit allows for such a structure to form.

I've said it before, I think, somewhere, it can be expressed simply.

1, 2, 3...
2, 4, 6...
3, 6, 9...

You would have to consider the set with more information (the 1, 2, 3.. one) to be the biggest set, and the other two to be of their own and still infinite but residing within the original set.

Something like 1, 1, 1... and 2, 2, 2... would be considered a null linear expression and can be contained as a subset of any of the related sets it can refer to, but would not yield anything. Much like repeating irrationals in fractions, it's simple enough to snip it at the first repeats and note it as such.

It does and doesn't get more complicated than that. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Thanks for the feedback.