On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 6:02:13 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 >
It implies that matter and radiation had a higher density. Whether the space of this cosmology was smaller is problematic. If the space is R^3 without bounds it makes no sense to say it was smaller. The same if the space is the Poincare dodecahedron space. LC -- 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/a67344a6-3894-4888-b912-e686a27f6171%40googlegroups.com.
