On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:34 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> All 3 assume the same physics. > > > > > For string theory, the multiverse universes could have radically > different fundamental parameters; e.g., Coulomb's law with force a function > of 1/ r^3, and/or no gravity, and/or whatever. In MWI, all alleged > universes have the SAME laws,
No, MMI alleges that everything that can happen does happen, in a universe with 4 spacial dimension Coulombs law would have a function of 1/ r^3 , If string theory is right about such a universe not violating the laws of logic then that universe can happen. and if that universe can happen then MWI says it does happen. And such a universe would exist in the Eternal Inflation multiverse too. > > I feel like I am arguing with a silly girl. > A bit sexist don't you think? > > > It was YOU who defacto alleged "no smudge", implying the electron has a > spatial extent of ZERO. > No, implying the electron has a spatial extent considerably smaller that the photographic plate, that's why I said it would make a spot on the plate, I did not say it would make a point. > > > if the electron has zero width, it would have infinite density. > True. > > > Is this logical? > Given the premise the conclusion is logical, if one quality, length, can be infinitely small then another quality, density, can be infinitely large. B ut nobody knows if a physical length smaller than 1.6 x 10 ^-35 meters is logical, my hunch is that it is not but its only a hunch and I could be wrong. > > > Experiments have placed limits on its width > All experiments can say is that the electron's radius is smaller that 10^16 meters, possibly much smaller, possibly infinitely smaller. > > >> >> >> >> It can't do what you claim without violating the UP. >> >> >> >> >> Ah but you forget to take IHA into account. >> >> > > > > IHA? > *I H*ATE *A*CRONYMS > > > Logically, its diameter must be non-zero. Otherwise its density would be > infinite. > Apparently you believe that infinite is another of those stories mathematicians tell each other in the language of mathematics. Who knows you may be right, infinity could be a story no closer to reality that a Harry Potter story written in the language of English. > > >> >> >> >> Google "Steven Weinberg, Many Worlds "repellent". If you can't find it, >> let me know. AG >> >> >> >> >> OK I'm officially letting you know, I just did exactly what you said >> but I still can't find it, I still can find no evidence Weinberg thinks >> the multiverse may have merit but not the MWI. >> > > > > I reasonably inferred that from his words. He thinks MWI "repellent", > meaning "ugly", and is hugely skeptical of its claims. > He said repellent and I can infer ugly , but where did "hugely skeptical" come from? And however strong Weinberg's emotional aversion to Many Worlds may be he admits he doesn't have a better idea. Look, maybe all current quantum interpretations are wrong and tomorrow somebody will find a better one, but right now Many Worlds is the least bad. John K Clark -- 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.
