On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:29 pm, <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:23:48 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, <[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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>
> Correction:
> To get a universe anything like ours, INSOFAR AS the space of multiverse
> possibilities seems plausibly uncountable, IT doesn't matter if our
> universe is conjectured as finite. It just wouldn't come up in a random
> process. AG
>

There is a further problem with this statement in that you seem to suggest
one needs to “find” a universe like ours in the continuum. But who would be
doing the searching?

> --
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.

Reply via email to