On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/10/2015 2:08 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 1/10/2015 4:08 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 30 Sep 2015, at 10:10 PM, Bruce Kellett < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 1/10/2015 12:44 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> In an infinite random sequence of numbers it is possible that my phone >> number appears once and never repeats, while other eight digit sequences >> appear multiple times; but I wouldn't bet on it. >> >> >> An infinite random sequence of digits has certain well-defined >> probabilistic properties. In particular, ll digits are equally likely, and >> all sequences of any particular length are equally likely. If that were not >> so, the sequence would not be random. So your phone number will occur many >> times. But this is not a good analogy because it relies of the definition >> of a random sequence of digits. We do not have any comparable uniformity >> definition for a collection of universes. >> >> >> A good guess is that the universe is infinite and every configuration of >> atoms repeats. If it is not infinite then a given configuration may not >> repeat. It could also be infinite but only some patterns repeat - others do >> not. There might be infinite copies of Mars, but only one Earth. That would >> be strange, but possible. That's what I thought you were proposing to fill >> an infinite universe with. >> >> >> Such would be a completely unevidenced guess -- no better than any other. >> > > No it is a consequence of inflation, which has a lot a of evidentiary > support. > > >> Even if the universe is infinite, there may be patterns (of zero measure) >> which do not repeat. >> > > We know the pattern containing you and Earth is possible. So why do you > think it would only happen once in an infinite universe filled with an > infinite (and exponentially growing) number of Big Bangs? As inflation > implies. > > In any event, it was never my intention to ague this is true, only that > it's not so clear that we don't need to consider the consequences of there > existing exact duplicates of our conscious states out there, whether that > be in other simulated realities, in our own universe very far away, in > future mind upload scenarios, in the many worlds of quantum mechanics, in > the landscape of possible string theory universes, or in the > Marchal/Tegmark/Standish conceptions of all computational, mathematical, or > informational structures. > > My intention was to point out that the existence of identical "copies" of > you outside your past or future light cone is of absolutely no relevance to > your present existence, continuing or not. If such purported copies are > relevant, demonstrate how they are relevant. > > I don't think that the existence of these "copies" is in any way implied, > or even made likely, by physical theories such as inflation, since even if > those theories accurately describe our universe, a lot of additional > assumption (for which there is no independent evidence) need to be made. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation Jason -- 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.
