Bruno, ashamed, because I decided many times not to barge into topics I do not understand and now I misuse your (and the list's) patience again:

you use "statistical". - "verified in MOST branches". I think my view is not too far away: statistical in my dictionary means a choice-set of cases selected for observation and in such selection we COUNT the matching and non-matching occurrences. The conclusions are strictly group-restricted. Choose different boundaries (maybe include domains we don't even know of) and the 'statistical' result may be different. Accordingly I would not say " Those branches do violate the second law..." I would rather say the II law is not valid (identified?) in "those" branches. "For that period of time"? I consider the MWI a one-plane extract of MW and in my 'narrative' (i don't use 'theory' for unsubstantiatable ideas, even if certain math can justify it) the multitude of universes is not in any qualitative bound. Diversity exceeds our human (scientific?) fantasy. Time, however, is a coordinate of THIS universe and I have no idea what kind of and what at all "time" may reign in other, totally different universes. Our physics is just our physics. I honor Everett as a pioneer and allow pioneers to be overstepped. (Another of my heresy: * probability * I consider as starting similarly to the above statistical formulation of mine, with an added superstition that the "next" (not necessarily the following one) will be adjusted to the 'statistically found' and chosen variant.). I like your phrasing: "...**IF** comp is true. Best regards John Mikes On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are you saying that the second law is verified in each of all > "branches" of the (quantum) multiverse? I would say the second law is > statistical, and is verified in most branches. In the MWI applied to > quantum field it seems to me that there can be branches with an > arbitrarily high number of photon creation without annihilation, and > this for each period of time. Those branches do violate the second law > for that period of time, although in most of branches, such violation > are quite ephemera. The probability to find ourself in such branch, a > priori, is very little, but the probability to *remain* in such a > branch is exponentially more negligible, if I can say. And that is what > counts, if you accept the RSSA. > (Then if comp is true, my point is that even schroedinger equation > itself has to come from a statistical phenomenon, albeit pertaining on > number (or abstract machines) relations: Everett is correct but don't > push his methodology sufficiently far). Isn't it? > > Bruno > > > > Le 17-avr.-08, à 15:02, Telmo Menezes a écrit : > > > > > Yes, you're right. Still I think my argument holds. The production of > > the rifle, bullet and geiger counter system plus the geiger counter > > operation should produce more than enough entropy to compensate for > > the atom not decaying. > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Michael Rosefield > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It's not so much the input of energy, it's the production of more > >> entropy > >> where the energy is taken from. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 17/04/2008, Telmo Menezes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I would like to argue that in setting this experiment, energy is > >>> being > >>> expended to prevent the increase in entropy, albeit not in an obvious > >>> way. > >>> > >>> It is a trivial observation that systems may be devised that prevent > >>> increases in entropy by paying energy costs. One example is an ice > >>> cube in the freezer. > >>> > >>> In the case of this experiment, and assuming MWI, we are creating a > >>> scenario where the atomic decay is not possible from the > >>> experimenter's perspective. However, the experimenter is setting a > >>> system that includes the rifle and the geiger counter. Both these > >>> devices need energy to operate. Maybe it's just a convoluted version > >>> of the ice cube in the freezer? > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Telmo Menezes. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:18 AM, nichomachus > >>> > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>> > >>>> In the description of the quantum immortality gedanken experiment, > >>>> a > >>>> physicist rigs an automatic rifle to a geiger counter to fire into > >>>> him > >>>> upon the detection of an atomic decay event from a bit of > >>>> radioactive > >>>> material. If the many worlds hypothesis is true, the > >>>> self-awareness of > >>>> the physicist will continue to find himself alive after any length > >>>> of > >>>> time in front of his gun, since there exist parallel worlds where > >>>> the > >>>> decay does not occur. > >>>> > >>>> On a microscopic scale this is analogous to the observing a > >>>> reality in > >>>> which the second law of thermodynamics does not hold. for example, > >>>> since there is a non-zero probability that molecular interactions > >>>> will > >>>> result in a decrease in entropy in a particular sealed volume under > >>>> observation, there exist histories in which this must be observed. > >>>> > >>>> This is never observed. Therefore the MWI is shown to be false. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---