Brent. thanks for reason.
How about staarting with that silly word:
"possible"? According to what? Our imagination?
Can we devise circumstances beyond our mind? Is it reasonable to judge
whether something is "possible" that is beyond our mental capability? Or
informational space? Is the world restricted to our views?
(and I mean it broader than just numbers).

Best regards

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything-List" <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: Have all possible events occurred?


>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Norman Samish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:33 AM
> >To: everything-list@eskimo.com
> >Subject: Re: Have all possible events occurred?
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Norman Samish writes:  Stathis, when you say "if you believe that
> >>>everything possible exists" are you implying that everything possible
need
> >>>NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)?  Wouldn't this mean that space-time
was
> >>>not infinite?  What hypothesis could explain finite space-time?
> >
> >>Brent Meeker writes: Spacetime could be infinite without "everything
> >>possible" existing.  It might even depend on how you define "possible".
> >>Are all real numbers "possible"?
> >
> >Norman Samish writes:
> >Brent, to me this is cryptic.  Can you enlarge on what you mean?  Your
> >statement seems to contradict what I've read, more than once; "In
infinite
> >space and time, anything that can occur must occur, not only once but an
> >infinite number of times."  I don't know the author or source, but I've
> >assumed this is a mathematical truism.  Am I wrong?
>
> It's certainly not a mathematical truism.  It might follow from certain
> conceptions of quantum mechanics; but I haven't seen any explicit
derivation of
> that.  There's nothing to prevent the universe from being infinite in both
> space and time and yet be almost completely empty, or filled with only
photons,
> or repeating periodically, or various other possibilities if you are
willing to
> count as "possible" different spontaneous symmetry breaking of the
fundamental
> symmetries.
>
> >
> >As for "Are all real numbers 'possible'?"  According to the definitions I
> >use, the answer, of course, is yes.  I obviously do not understand the
point
> >you are trying to make.
>
> Different sets have different cardinality. The cardinality of real numbers
is
> greater than that of integers.  The cardinality of functions over space is
> greater than the cardinality of points in space.  So what's the
cardinality of
> "occurences"?
>
> Brent Meeker
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.5/32 - Release Date: 06/27/05
>
>

Reply via email to