On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 7:41 am, <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 3:28:20 PM UTC, stathisp wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 6:23 pm, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, >>>>>>>>>> agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, <agrays...@gmail.com> 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 >
Shouldn’t it be the other way around - a structure with uncountably infinite states will not repeat in a finite or countable infinite superstructure? > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
