On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 3:28:20 PM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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 >> > > It isn’t our universe that is conjectured as finite, it is subsets of it. > One little subset is denominated by the sequence of integers “123”. Are you > suggesting that “123” might not come up again given an infinite random > progression of integers? >
What I am conjecturing is that IF there's a multiverse, and IF new universes come into existence by a random process, and IF the possibilities are uncountable (or possibly even if countable), one can do a thought experiment to show there are no exact or even approximate repeats of whole universes. I suppose part of one universe could be trivially repeated in another, like some vacuum state. 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.
