On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, <[email protected]
<mailto:[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
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?
