On 3/20/2014 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2014, at 23:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/19/2014 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:20, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
So....did anyone's ToE predict this outcome?
I am not sure you are 100% serious on this, but the question is very interesting, so I
will make some comments, which might not been taken 100% seriously.
At first, we might say that any evidence that something is finite hereby already look
like a refutation of comp, and this basically at the start, by taking seriously the
FPI on *all* true sigma_1 sentences (which I recall somehow emulate the universal
dovetailing).
So, the apparent existence of a finite past might be a trouble for the
computationalist hypothesis, below the substitution level, a first person plural
reality should look like a superposition of more and more ever "possible states", up
to the still possible inflation of "white rabbits".
The concordance model of cosmogony (including gravity waves influencing the CMB)
doesn't imply a finite past - only a finite past for this universe.
Nice. (Not entirely sure what you mean precisely by "this universe", though).
The one whose history includes the big bang and the CMB we observe. The observation of
strong B-mode polarization at long wavelengths is consistent with predictions of the
eternal inflation model and inconsistent with several others, such as the ekpyrotic and
M-brane collision models. Lubos Motl has a good discussion of what's ruled on his blog.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
