On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room; >>>>>> introducing Many Worlds creates hugely more complications than it >>>>>> purports >>>>>> to do away with; multiple, indeed infinite observers with the same >>>>>> memories >>>>>> and life histories for example. Give me a break. AG >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What about a single, infinite world in which everything is duplicated >>>>> to an arbitrary level of detail, including the Earth and its inhabitants, >>>>> an infinite number of times? Is the bizarreness of this idea an argument >>>>> for a finite world, ending perhaps at the limit of what we can see? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --stathis Papaioannou >>>>> >>>> >>>> FWIW, in my view we live in huge, but finite, expanding hypersphere, >>>> meaning in any direction, if go far enough, you return to your starting >>>> position. Many cosmologists say it's flat and thus infinite; not >>>> asymptotically flat and therefore spatially finite. Measurements cannot >>>> distinguish the two possibilities. I don't buy the former since they also >>>> concede it is finite in age. A Multiverse might exist, and that would >>>> likely be infinite in space and time, with erupting BB universes, some like >>>> ours, most definitely not. Like I said, FWIW. AG >>>> >>> >>> OK, but is the *strangeness* of a multiverse with multiple copies of >>> everything *in itself* an argument against it? >>> >>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >> >> FWIW, I don't buy the claim that an infinite multiverse implies infinite >> copies of everything. Has anyone proved that? AG >> > > If there are uncountable possibilities for different universes, why should > there be any repetitions? I don't think infinite repetitions has been > proven, and I don't believe it. AG > > If a finite subset of the universe has only a finite number of configurations and the Cosmological Principle is correct, then every finite subset should repeat. It might not; for example, from a radius of 10^100 m out it might be just be vacuum forever, or Donald Trump dolls.
-- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
