On 11/26/2017 10:45 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



    On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC,
    [email protected] <mailto:[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.

Right.  And a "universe" is not a well defined thing at the quantum level.  The "splitting" of Everett's MWI is a statistical approximation.  Zurek makes it sharp by saying that a repeated measurement (of the first kind) must return the same value.  But I think that is just a way of imposing the thermodynamic limit on the statistics.

Brent


--
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] <mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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