On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 2:20:36 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:21 AM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > JC> 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.> > > > > > *But that's NOT what MMI alleges.* > > > *Bullshit. * > > > *> That's essentially what Tegmark claims,* > > > I*'ve read every one * > *of Max Tegmark's books. Have you? Tegmark is a well known many worlds > advocate and thinks it is true; he thinks that everything that does not > violate the laws of physics actually happens and I think he's probably > right about that. But Tegmark goes further than that, he thinks everything > that does not violate the laws of logic or mathematics does happen, and I'm > much more skeptical about that.* >
No. Haven't read any Tegmark. I go by what his enthusiasts claim to make a judgement whether it's worth my time. He is entitled to his opinions, of course, but you know what they say about opinions; like assholes, everyone has one. Tegmark doesn't know what level of infinity are possible for universes. And if the number is uncountable, it's likely that even with infinite time, not all will be realized. I offered a thought experiment involving the real line to make a plausible argument for that. AG > > > *FOR Coulombs law to have a function of 1/ r^3 all you'd need is a > universe with 4 spacial dimensions, and If the string theorists are right > (a big if) then a universe with 4 spacial dimensions is physically > possible, in fact acording to them 10 physical spacial dimension is > logically NECESSARY.* > > *String theory multiverse and many world multiverse having nothing to > do with each other my ass! Is it really your contention that string theory > is OK with a universe with 10 spacial dimensions and one time dimension but > not OK with a universe like this one except that my coin came out heads > instead of tails?? * > Everett wrote his paper in 1952 and Tegmark presented his claims many decades later. The only thing they have in common is the claim of many universes, but as I have stated many times, the concept of multiple worlds arises in different contexts, string theory vs MWI, and conflating the two only leads to confusion. AG > * * > > * > but the Many Worlds of MWI have the SAME defining parameters as our > universe* > > > *There must be some physical principles that are true in every world in > the Everett multiverse, but what are they? Does the gravitational constant > have to have the same value in every universe that it has here, is the Fine > Structure Constant a pure number very close to 1/137 everywhere? I don't > know. I'm very confident the second law of thermodynamics is true > everywhere, I'm reasonably confident the conservation of electrical charge > is true everywhere, but I'm less sure of the conservation of mass energy or > angular momentum. From a multiverse point of view some of the things that > seem absolutely fundamental to us may be be more like the number planets in > our solar system and have nothing to do with anything fundamental. * > > *> since OUR universe is claimed to be reproduced EXACTLY,* > > > *If you put a gun to my head I couldn't say what you were trying to say > by that.* > > > *> except for the measurements realized in [...]* > > *Forget measurement! Measurement has nothing to do with the MWI,* > It surely does, except that the word "measurement" is a no-no for MWI enthusiasts. For example, in MWI we have an SG device and an electron going through its magnetic field and registering UP or DN. This has ALL the elements of a measurement regardless of how you label it. AG > * in fact that is the one and only reason I am a Many Worlds fan, unlike > the other quantum interpretations it doesn't have to explain what a > measurement is, or a observation, or get mired in pointless consciousness > debates. * > Right. MWI doesn't explain what happens when the "measurement" occurs, or what a "measurement" is. It just tells us what we already know; that some result is attained and we have no clue why that outcome obtains. Moreover, as I explained several times, consciousness is NOT involved in "collapsing" the wf, regardless of what the early proponents of Copenhagen believed. Why do you keep bringing up this dead horse? AG > > > Of course, if you set up a situation in which a quantum event is > amplified to give a difference in macroscopic outcomes, such as in > Schrödinger's cat, then you can say that the macroscopic uncertainty has a > quantum origin. But the majority of quantum events are not amplified in > this way. > > Not my comment. It's what Bruce wrote. Same for the next comment you reproduced. AG > ... -- 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.
