## Advertising

On Sep 28, 2011, at 1:28 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 9/27/2011 10:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>wrote:On 9/27/2011 9:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:I don't think that. I just noted it's logically possible,contrary to assertions that our universe must be duplicatedinfinitely many times.If our universe is not duplicated a huge number of times, thenquantum computers would not work. They rely on huge numbers ofuniverses different from ours aside from a few entangledparticles. Even normal interference patterns are explained bythere existing a huge number of very similar universes.Or by Feynmann paths that zigzag in spacetime. Don't become toenamored of an interpretation.If you assume there is a single photon interfering with itself,how is it that this one particle can evaluate a problem whosecomputational complexity would exceed that of any conventionalcomputer using all the matter in the universe?Has such a problem been solved?

`Quantum computers have been built, but last I checked it was only 7`

`qubits. There is no known principle which would forbid quantum`

`computers having more qubits. Even one with a few thousand could`

`solve problems we could not otherwise.`

Anyway, the answer is by the one particle cycling back thru time, soit appears to us as many particles.

`If this is a possible answer you should write David deutsch, since he`

`says he has never received an explanation in a non many worlds`

`framework.`

`Then again, if every partical is going backwards in time to cover`

`every possibility, is that really any different? Would not all`

`possibilities be realized infinitely often?`

However, according to Vilenkin, Greene, andTegmark, a generic prediction of the theory of inflation is thatthereis an *infinite* number of Hubble volumes (what you are calling universes). Let's call the hypothesis that all quantum-physical possibilities are realized infinitely many times "the hypothesis of Cosmic Repetition". Brian Greene argues for this hypothesis quite persuasively. He says, "In an infinitely big universe, there areinfinitely many patches [i.e., Hubble volumes]; so, with onlyfinitelymany different particles arrangements, the arrangements of particles within patches must be duplicated an infinite number of times." (The Hidden Reality, pg. 33)It's plausible - but not logically required. Suppose all theinfinite universes are number 1, 2, ... Number 1 is ours. Number2 something different. Numbers 3,4, ...inf are exact copies ofnumber 2. So there are only two arrangements of particles; inspite of there being infinitely many universes.Not logically required, but I would say it is not consistent withour current theories and observations.As for the probability distribution of matter and/or outcomes, I'll let Tegmark do the explaining: "Observers living in parallel universes at Level I observe the exact same laws of physics as we do, but with different initial conditions than those in our Hubble volume.This is questionable. Most theories of the universe starting froma quantum fluctuation or tunneling from a prior universe assumethat the universe must start very small - no more than a fewPlanck volumes.The generalized theory of inflation is eternal inflation. Itleads to an exponentially growing volume which expands forever.This limits the amount of information that can possibly beprovided as initial conditions. So where does all the informationcome from?I haven't heard the theory that there is an upper bound on theinformation content for this universe set by the big bang.In one Planck volume there is only room for one bit. That's theholographic principle.Yet our universe appears to take more than 1 bit to describe, andit seems to have a possibly infinite volume.That's why I provided the (possible) explanation below.As to where information comes from, if all possibilities exist,the total information content may be zero, and the appearance of alarge amount of information is a local illusion.QM allows negative information (hidden correlations) so that onepossibility is that the net information is zero or very small andthe apparent information is created by the existence of the hubblehorizon.The currently favored theory is that the initial conditions (the densities and motions of different types of matter early on) were created by quantum fluctuations during the inflation epoch (see section 3). This quantum mechanism generates initial conditions that are for all practical purposes random, producingdensity fluctuations described by what mathematicians call anergodicrandom field. Ergodic means that if you imagine generating anensembleof universes, each with its own random initial conditions, then theprobability distribution of outcomes in a given volume isidentical tothe distribution that you get by sampling different volumes in a single universe.That's not what ergodic means. In the theory of stochasticprocesses it means that ensemble statistics are the same astemporal statistics. In the eternal expansion theory it is notassumed that the physics is the same in each bubble universe.This one "bubble" is infinitely big according to eternal inflation.I don't think it is necessarily spacially infinite. But in anycasethe the theory of eternal inflations is that new bubble universesare eternally created. Some are finite and collapse in a bigcrunch. Others, like ours, expand indefinitely.It is hypothesized that the spontaneous symmetry breaking thatresults in different coupling constants for the weak, strong, EM,and gravity forces is random. That's how it provides and anthropicexplanation for "fine-tuning" - we're in the one where the randomsymmetry breaking was favorable to life.This is one hypothesis to explain fine tuning, I am not sure howwell it is supported.In other words, it means that everything that could in principle have happened here did in fact happen somewhere else. Inflation in fact generates all possible initial conditionsBut it's not initial conditions. It's random symmetry breaking.with non-zero probability, the most likely ones being almost uniform with fluctuations at the 10^5 level that are amplified by gravitational clustering to form galaxies,stars, planets and other structures. This means both that prettymuchall imaginable matter configurations occur in some Hubble volume far away, and also that we should expect our own Hubble volume to be a fairly typical one — at least typical among those that contain observers.But this sort of undercuts the need for the anthropic explanation.If our universe is "typical" (i.e. probable) then there's no needto invoke infinitely many others to avoid the "fine-tuning"problem. You could just say it's the more probable one and so it'sthe one that happened.Brent"If an explanation could easily explain anything in the givenfield, then it actually explains nothing."Which explanation is this referring to?Scientific explanations in general. The first chapter, "The Reachof Explanations" is about the difference between good explanationsand bad explanations. He argues that it is not a question oftestability, as sometimes claimed, but of scope and specificity.

`It is interesting you should say that. Before I read your response I`

`was going to propose my take on you aphorism: the more deep or`

`fundamental a theory is, the less specific it will be.`

Jason

BrentJason --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.

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