If the Universe Is Infinite, Why Isn't Everything Random??

Hi am Geoffrey

have been wondering for a while now and have asked questions both in game and real life but I just can't get myself to think of an answer even asking from physicists in torn like bigjaw99 but they also struggled to provide answers and that's what makes the out multiverse wonderful the more we learn and explore the little we realise we know so here is my question If we take Eternal Inflation seriously, then we’re not just living in a big universe—we’re inside one “bubble” in an endlessly self-reproducing system where new universes are constantly being formed that's why I think out universe is apart of a multiverse that has been happening for an infinite amount of time. That immediately raises a problem with Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us disorder should always increase: if entropy is always going up, how does eternal inflation keep producing fresh, low-entropy regions over and over again? Is entropy really increasing globally, or just within each individual universe while the bigger system resets itself? Then add in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle—if quantum fluctuations are enough to trigger inflation, does that mean entire universes can emerge from fundamental uncertainty, and if so, where do we even draw the line between “nothing” and “something”? And what about the Third Law of Thermodynamics, which suggests systems approach a minimum entropy at absolute zero—can that limit ever actually be reached in a framework where space itself is constantly expanding and generating new regions, or is equilibrium impossible on a cosmic scale? What really gets me is this: if the system is infinite, then every possible state should exist somewhere, so why do we observe such consistent physical laws instead of total randomness, and why does a stable, structured universe like ours exist at all? Are we looking at fundamental rules of reality, or just one outcome in an infinite set—and if it’s the latter, how would we ever know the difference?

If you think you can share your knowledge and enlighten me then it would be appreciated thank you 

physicists in torn like bigjaw99

I think you might have been trolled there.

if entropy is always going up, how does eternal inflation keep producing fresh, low-entropy regions over and over again?

Inflation was a low entropy state, its not going from high to low, it is starting low.

Then add in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle—if quantum fluctuations are enough to trigger inflation, does that mean entire universes can emerge from fundamental uncertainty, and if so, where do we even draw the line between “nothing” and “something”?

We don't know what "triggers" inflation or whether that even makes sense to talk about. "nothing" vs "something" is also more of a philosophical question.

And what about the Third Law of Thermodynamics, which suggests systems approach a minimum entropy at absolute zero—can that limit ever actually be reached

Technically speaking it would take infinite amount of time to get absolute zero, as you approach it asymptotically. 

in a framework where space itself is constantly expanding and generating new regions, or is equilibrium impossible on a cosmic scale?

Well the universe is essentially in thermal equilibrium, thats the entire problem that inflation is trying to solve. The "new" space (note that this is a misleading way of putting it, cosmic expansion can be explained without invoking this idea), isn't any different from the space around it.

if the system is infinite, then every possible state should exist somewhere, so why do we observe such consistent physical laws

Every possible state, i.e. only those that are consistent with physical laws. Admittedly you can make an argument of things that follow randomness may have a chain of random results that ends up in a seemingly unlikely scenario, but hypothetically speaking that would be less likely, and we are more likely to exist in one of the universes where the more likely scenarios occur. 

Are we looking at fundamental rules of reality, or just one outcome in an infinite set—and if it’s the latter, how would we ever know the difference?

You would not know the difference. Philosophically speaking, you might even say there is no difference.

Most of the things you refer to are speculative theories without much as.of yet evidence. Eternal Inflation is not something that has direct evidence, so.you have to take a grain of salt with any implications that the theory may just be wrong.

Entropy is added as spacetime expands because it allows for more valid configurations in that space.

Interesting take on it.

Having more valid configurations in a system isn't entropy.

Entropy is when fewer interactions between particles are possible (or, as you say, "valid").

The "systems" we observe today, such as stars, and black holes, galaxies, orbital systems, and/or life, cease to exist or be possible due to the vastness of the space between them.

But entropy, like the Big Bang, is merely a postulated explanation and extrapolation of the obverserved data.  Physicists are still unsettled on whether the universe is expanding or contracting, or whether space even has more than one dimension.

I was speaking casually on the fly, but when I said valid configurations, I was speaking of what is more often called microstates (A microstate is a specific configuration of the locations and energies of the atoms or molecules that comprise a system), which is the literal definition of entropy S = k * ln W where W is the number of possible microstates in a system and k is Boltzmann's Constant.

Entropy has nothing to do with interactions.  That may be a useful analogy when looking at astrophysics but many increases in entropy allow for more frequent interaction between particles, such as a solid turning into a liquid or a chemical reaction where there are more molecules created as products than molecules of reactant.  For example in an ice cube, water molecules are held in a strict crystalline structure and will only interact with neighbors but once melted, will be able to interact with all the other water molecules as well.

"Entropy" is not an explanation for observational data.  I brought entropy up because OP suggested expanding space would lead to a net drop in entropy and I wanted to explain that is not so.  That the universe, at least locally, is expanding is the pretty universal consensus because our observations show the vast majority of galaxies are not just moving away from us but accelerating away.  I'm not sure what you mean by "whether space even has more than one dimension."  we have 3 spacial dimensions and some theories like string theory postulate more special dimensions because it makes the math work but there's no physical evidence for their existence.

I think for our particular type of life stability is crucial to our existence so the environment that we exist in (noticeably and observably and whatnot) is stable and consistent because that is the only environment that we would be able to live in. Humans are relatively fragile, a sharp object separating our molecules can lead to our death or a severe setback instead of something more like a minor inconvenience where the molecules that make up our body just slip past the sharp surface.

You could imagine a form of life that thrives in chaos and complete randomness but maybe they would have a different type of consciousness or something because with what we have you kind of need some form of stability to hold onto a thought for a moment or remain in the same place. Maybe they’d be solitary travelers that are just constantly moving to random places in spacetime and their existence is spent reflecting on their favorite moments as an infinite amount of random ones flash past them. Perhaps if they had no value for stability they’d just spend their time being consumed by the randomness letting each moment  pull them in to whatever experience before the next one hits them.

Another thought, an environment where everything is surrounded by random chaos but what is observable is like an equilibrium or average of the chaos that surrounds it. Maybe something like you only get to see outcomes that occur frequently because everything else is rare, fleeting and constantly changing.

Idk but it’s something interesting to think about, how life could exist without some sort of stable base but when I started thinking about it it felt like all of my thoughts centered around some sort of stability but I suppose you don’t really need stability to exist but it feels like life on earth is standing still in a certain way instead of shuffling through pure randomness but even the concept of shuffling has points of stability bcuz you’re going from one thing to the next where something is the same for atleast a moment. Feels like I need to expand my mind a little more to figure out what pure randomness could be like but I can’t sit here forever just thinking.

also I made the text purple just bcuz it’s my favorite color, hope it isn’t too distracting or anything.

This is a great clarification on entropy, particularly where it involves particle physics.

The OP's post was about the expansion of the universe, so I thought your original statements on entropy were within that context, not within the context of partical physics... though they both obviously play a role when we're talking about the expansion of the universe.

Cheers.

Well I presume that's why it's called a theory it's not been proven

Atoms existing is also a theory. It.jas a different definition scientifically than the one of "unproven speculation." 

Something is a theory regardless of the level of evidence for it. Some theories are jusshkwn to be better and replace or enhance earlier ones much like how classical physics was suppmanted with the theory of relativity.

Want a mad scientist's perspective who is just coming out of the woods struggling to re enter the matrix??

The only thing that matters is matter

Balance is the heartbeat of the universe, it creates all the atoms and all the data that your brain can process

Dragonflies see around 300fps so the time you experience is only what your brain is capable of interpreting. Time isn't really what you think it is 

My theory is the universe is in the shape of the the #8 😜. The center being the big bang. The universe will ever expand until the end of time, when all the stars become black holes, and all matter starts going in reverse being pulled back together.... Then when all of the existing matter and anti matter meet and one singular point, that's the next big bang...

 Maybe all those multiverse theories are just different big bangs in different time? After the next big bang there must be another earth right? All recycled star dust... But all facts are theories that have not been proven wrong yet and you are wasting the time you get to experience life and process/ exchange data on things that will only make you miss opportunities if you were to instead use your time learning how to live without hate in your heart and really ride the vibrations of the universe before you.

Hi my name is chaos and I have a problem. ✌🏽

Nice

If it was infinite we would see nothing but stars in the sky