On 27 Nov 2017, at 21:53, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:56:39 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 11/26/2017 9:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou 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?
That conclusion for the Level I multiverse depends on a particular
assumption about the initial probability distribution. Can you
justify that assumption?
The assumption is the Cosmological Principle, that the part of the
universe that we can see is typical of the rest of the universe.
Maybe it's false; but my question is, is the strangeness of a Level
I multiverse an *argument* for its falseness?
A multiverse is not a strange hypothesis. If the universe arose
from some physical process, then it is natural to suppose that same
process could operate to produce multiple universes. This is true
even for supernatural creation: even if a god or gods created the
universe they might very well create many.
Brent
Agreed. The subject is entirely speculative with zero evidence
AFAICT. I don't believe in infinite repeats, and I offered a thought
experiment to show a scenario with no repeats. AG
Zero universe, one universe, two universes, omega universes, aleph_1
universes, ... all assumption of the number of universe is
speculative. But if we assume Mechanism or Quantum Mechanism, we tend
to zero universes, and infinitely many histories, as a consequence of
the theories.
There is not one evidence for a "Universe" if taken as an ontological
("really existing") being.
The collapse assumption is worst than speculative, as it assumes that
QM is simply wrong, without any evidence, nor any precision of where
it becomes wrong. Then it speculates on magical things like the spooky
action at a distance, a 3p physical indeterminism, etc.
Bruno
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
