On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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 >> >
> But the possibilities are not infinite if we only want to reproduce a > finite structure with finite precision. > To get a universe anything like ours, the space of multiverse possibilities seems plausibly uncountable. Doesn't matter if our universe is conjectured as finite. It just wouldn't come up in a random process. AG > > > -- > 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.
