On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, <[email protected]> wrote >> >> > >>> You're conflating Multiverse with the MWI. >>> >> >> >> You can't have the MWI without the Multiverse, and if there is a >> Multiverse then the MWI explains a lot. >> >> There are about 10^80 atoms in the observable universe and obviously >> there is a finite number of ways 10^80 atoms can be arranged in a sphere >> with a radius of 13.8 billion light years; so if the >> entire >> universe (not to be confused with the observable universe) is infinite >> then at a very large but still finite distance things must repeat and there >> is a universe identical to our own, and at another hyper large distance >> there is a universe identical to ours except that the freckle on my right >> thumb is on my left thumb instead. And at a even greater distance one >> second after a John Clark hits send on a message identical to this one all >> the air molecules in the room he is in go to the other side of the room due >> to random thermal vibrations and that John Clark suffocates. Bizarre events >> like that are not impossible just very very unlikely, but if the universe >> is really infinite then everything that doesn't violate the laws of physics >> will happen, and the Many World people say that's what the wave function is >> trying to tell us, everything that can happen will happen. >> > > The concept of Multiverse and Many Worlds come from entirely different > contexts and theories, so the idea that they are somehow connected or > related strikes me a patently false. Moreover, the idea that if the > universe is infinite (in some parameter; spatial extent, age, whatever), > then anything that can happen, will happen, is IMO unproven and almost > certainly false. For example, we know that irrational numbers exist, but in > an infinite string of digits representing some irrational number, there are > no repetitions of any subset strings. But there should be according to your > conjecture. >
*Or look at it this way; if your conjecture were true, it would be impossible for irrational numbers to exist, since recurring repetitions of subset strings would be impossible to avoid.* -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
