On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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 >> > > But the structures we may be interested in are finite. I feel that I am > the same person from moment to moment despite multiple changes in my body > that are grossly observable, so changes in the millionth decimal place of > some parameter won't bother me. The dart has to land on a blob, not on a > real number. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou >
Don't you like thought experiments? I have shown that the parameters of our universe won't come up in a random process if the possibilities are uncountable (and possibly even if they're countable). Maybe you prefer a theory where Joe the Plumber shoots a single electron at a double slit and creates an uncountable number of identical universe except for the variation in outcomes. Does this make more sense to you? AG -- 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.
