On 5/21/2010 5:58 PM, m.a. wrote:

    ----- Original Message -----
    *From:* Quentin Anciaux <mailto:allco...@gmail.com>
    *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
    *Sent:* Friday, May 21, 2010 9:19 AM
    *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

    2010/5/21 m.a. <marty...@bellsouth.net

            ----- Original Message -----
            *From:* Stathis Papaioannou <mailto:stath...@gmail.com>
            *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
            *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:35 PM
            *Subject:* Re: Quantum Immortality considering "Passing Out"

            On 20/05/2010, at 4:12 PM, "m.a." <marty...@bellsouth.net
            <mailto:marty...@bellsouth.net>> wrote:

            I may have this all wrong, but it seems to me that for
            there to be umpteen trillion copies of a person there had
            to be umpteen trillion (UT) copies of his parents. And
            only a relatively small sub-group of those met and
            cohabited at the exact moment of his/her conception. But
            the same must have been true for their parents and their
            parents' parents and so forth back to the primoridal
            slime. And this staggering foliation of universes only
            covers one specific zygote of two specific gametes. What
            of all the other UT^UT combinations leading to the
            creation of other individuals just on this family tree?
            And what of all the other combinations and histories of
            every human, animal, insect and bacterium on this planet?
            Does it really make sense to assume numbers of universes
            so far beyond our ability to conceive of?    marty a.

            You may as well claim that an infinite single universe
            should not exist because it boggles the human mind.

            Stathis Papaioannou
            I don't know, Stathis. Somehow it seems easier for me to
            conceive of ONE infinite universe than to conceive of
            umpteen trillion trillion trillion^umpteen trillion
            trillion trillion^umpteen...universes. My "mind" is
            obviously more limited than yours.     m.a.

Just boggling the unmathematical intuition is not a reason to reject infinities. But infinities are acceptable precisely insofar at they do not "boggle" the mathematical mind. If one can say exactly what they mean by an infinity, such as the cardinality of the integers, then they can be a part of our model of the world. But if it's just some indefinite "infinity" then I think m.a. is right. Since QM lives in the space of square integrable complex functions, it's already a bigger infinity than the integers and the reals. I'm not sure you can define Borel sets over elements of this space; and if you can't you've boggled the mathematics.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to