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

----- Original Message ----- *From:* Quentin Anciaux <mailto:allco...@gmail.com> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto: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 <mailto:marty...@bellsouth.net>> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Stathis Papaioannou <mailto:stath...@gmail.com> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto: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.`

Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.