On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:36 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> Our universe might be finite, but the parameter variations of possible >> universes might be uncountable. If so, there's no reason to think the >> parameters characterizing our universe will come again in a random process. >> AG >> > > Think of it this way; if our universe is represented by some number on the > real line, and you throw darts randomly at something isomorphic to the real > line, what's the chance of the dart landing on the number representing our > universe?. ANSWER: ZERO. AG >
There is a paper on this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1066 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
