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.* > > > *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?? * > > * > 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, 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. * > > > 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. > > > *So you really do think reality can be neatly divided between quantum and > non-quantum events, I have no idea where you got that idea, I think it is > more likely that EVERY quantum event gets amplified, although some faster > than others. After all the movement of the planets and the ability to make > good predictions of where they will be centuries in the future with just a > few simple equations are the oddballs, most things are not like that at > all, even the movement of comets is vastly more complicated. * > > > >> they simply occur randomly > > > *So I guess you think the universe is not deterministic. Me too.* >
I believe Bruce thinks the universe is irreducibly random. So do I, given Bell experiment results and the non existence of hidden variables. AG > > *In fact, when you think about it, the possible universes claimed by MWI >> is HUGELY GREATER than the number claimed by string theory EVEN IF OUR >> UNIVERSE IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE UNIVERSE -- not a mere 10^500 -- since >> there's no limit on how many universes metastasize when Joe the Plumber >> enters a casino* > > > > *I don't know who Joe is but whatever your occupation if you can't make > discrimination of one part in 10^500 (and remember there are only 10^80 > atoms in the observable universe) then 10^500 universes would be > indistinguishable from infinity. So, can you see changes of one part in > 10^500? * > You don't understand what I was asserting. If Joe the Plumber (who gained fame in a recent presidential election in some well publicized interviews) goes into a lab and does a simple double slit experiment with a SINGLE outcome and then leaves the casino, there is a cascading, metastasizing numbers of universes which in time can EXCEED that large number, indeed any larger number. Moreover, these universes have the SAME fundamental constants and differ only in the outcome attained in each universe. String theory posits DIFFERENT fundamental constants for its claim of 10^500 universes in the Landscape. AG *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.
