These models with topological non-local features may not actually
have "outsides" by the same token that the Mobius band only has one
side, get it? Max Tegmark is a nice kid but he does not seem to deal
very well with his own finitude ! I am sure he is not the only one...
Norman Samish wrote:
> To repeat Tegmark's rhetorical question (and he's probably not the
> originator), "If the multiverse is finite, what's outside it's edge?"
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mirai Shounen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Federico Marulli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 1:14 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > > > 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
> > > 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.
> > >
Joao Pedro Leao ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140
Work Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124
"All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)"