On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 3:56:42 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 10:22:38 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:08:23 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:26 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> *> Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there >>>> must exist exact copies of universes and ourselves. This is frequently >>>> claimed by the MWI true believers, but never, AFAICT, proven, or even >>>> plausibly argued. What's the argument for such a claim?* >>>> >>> >>> Of course it's been proven! It's simple math, there are only a finite >>> number of ways the atoms in your body, or even the entire OBSERVABLE >>> universe, can be arranged so obviously if the entire universe is infinite >>> then there is going to have to be copies, an infinite number of them in >>> fact. Max Tegmark has even calculated how far you'd have to go to see >>> such a thing. >>> >> >> What I think you're missing (and Tegmark) is the possibility of >> UNcountable universes. In such case, one could imagine new universes coming >> into existence forever and ever, without any repeats. Think of the number >> of points between 0 and 1 on the real line, each point associated with a >> different universe. AG >> >>> >>> Your closest identical copy is 10^12 light years away. About 10^76 light >>> years away there is a sphere of radius 100 light-years identical to the one >>> centered here, so everything we see here during the next century will be >>> identical to those of our counterparts over there. And 10^102 light years >>> away the is a exact copy of our entire observable universe. And all this is >>> true regardless of if the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics >>> is correct or not, it only depends on the universe being spatially infinite. >>> >> >> But our universe is NOT spatially infinite if its been expanding for >> finite time, starting very small, as can be inferred from the temperature >> of the CMBR. AG >> > > This is wrong. The CMB is at a distance of 46 billion light years while it > was also generated 13.8 billion years ago. The more distant things are the > more it is frame dragged by the accelerated expansion, in a sense a "soft > inflationary" expansion. If this were not the case the CMB would have > markedly different characteristics. > > LC >
Doesn't the high temperature and density at BB +380,000 years imply the universe was small at that time? 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c6c75bf8-9316-43cb-b4f7-849fbf59d5d1%40googlegroups.com.
