On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, <[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 >>> >> >> 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 might get universes close to ours, but even this would be hugely unlikely given the uncountable assumed number of possibilities, and even a close call might mean no hit wiping the dinos. No exact repeats! 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.
