Brent Meeker wrote:

>> These questions may reduce to something like, "Is there a lower limit to
>> the amplitude of the SWE?"
>>
>> If measure is infinitely divisible, then is there any natural scale to
>> its absolute value?
> 
> I think it is not and there is a lower limit below which cross terms in the 
> density 
> matrix must be strictly (not just FAPP) zero.  The Planck scale provides a 
> lower 
> bound on fundamental physical values.  So it makes sense to me that treating 
> probability measures as a continuum is no more than a convenient 
> approximation.  But 
> I have no idea how to make that precise and testable.

Having measure ultimately having a fixed lower limit would I think be
fatal to QTI.  But, consider the following:

At every successive moment our measure is decreasing, possibly by a very
large fraction, depending on how you count it.  Every moment we branch
into only one of a huge number of possibilities.  A "moment" here is on
the order a Planck time unit.

So does this mean we run the risk of suddenly ceasing to exist, if our
measure decreases past a lower limit simple due to the evolution of the SWE?

-Johnathan

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to