Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin a écrit : > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D > > Jones > > > >> The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a > >> Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one > >> distinguishing "real" ones from "coincidental" ones. How does a Harry > >> Potter film differ from a documentary? > > > > The only way I know of that the MWI distinguishes these is that the > > "measure" of the "real ones" is Vastly larger than the "measure" of the > > rest. But that is just restating things. > > > > > > > > Except, I would say that QM-without-collapse + decoherence theory > explains the measure of the real one is vaster than the measure of the > Harry-Potter (HP) stories, and, as DD said himself, why the probability > to remains in a Harry Potter story is negligible.
In Barbour-style theories, every Now (3D configuration of matter) is exemplified exactly once. > In a a-la-Feynman nutshell: QM entails a phase randomization making the > HP story amplitude of probabilities self-destroying. That's multiversal, not omniversal. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
