Dear Mirai and Federico and Friends, Could we cover the "White Rabbit" and "Harry Potter" universes by considering that for a pair of systems to interact their individual histories must not contradict each other? This, I think, would also cover interactions between the MWI "branches".
Kindest regards, Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mirai Shounen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Federico Marulli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:14 PM Subject: Re: a possible paradox > Actually I wasn't thinking about "physically impossible things happening > very rarely" (QM) but only about regular physics vs probability of things > happening. > > If you consider quantum mechanics you are right in an infinite universe > there could be areas in which physics just happens to work very differently, > people there would formulate very different physical laws (if people could > evolve, or spontaneously appear). > > So if the universe is infinite, it doesn't make much sense to talk about > laws of physics. Still there need to be some fundamental rules that never > change, for example the fact that something exists. You can't have areas of > the universe in which the universe itself does note exist (I think). > > Frankly I don't believe the universe is infinite, occam's razor says it's > just very big. > Last month there was a report about someone finding a pattern in galaxies > that would suggest the universe is much smaller than we thought but light > "wraps around" making it appear infinite... the theory was discarded very > soon after more experiments were carried out, but it reminded me of that > star trek episode.. "state the nature of the universe" - "the universe is a > hollow sphere 12 km in diameter" ... or something. > > Infinity is just our perception of things very big... something that > originates from nothingness and expands has very little chances of becoming > infinite in finite time. > > > mirai++ > > > > I think two things are being confused. First, the laws of physics, > second, > > > the laws of probability. A gas particle follow physical rules (movement, > > > bumping, thermal vibrations) and lots of gas particles together follow > > > probability rules (low probability of people suffocating in rooms). > > > > The problem is that all the laws of physics have been found observing the > > world around us in an experimental way. But all the outcomes of an > > experiment are probabilistc and we know the low of physics only with a > > certain error. So the paradox in the laws of probability is a paradox in > > laws of physics too. The whole physics is probabilistic. > > > >