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 firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---