On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 11:04:47 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:29 pm, <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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 >
I'm postulating a random process in which our universe, finite or infinite, is NOT replicated. Many say it will be, and they also postulate a random process but cannot explain how it functions. I offered a contrary thought experiment. No deterministic rule, no person doing it; no God behind the curtain. And no different than any other law of physics, except in QM we're dealing with irreducible random processes.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.
