On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:18:40 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:22 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > *> 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* >> > > There is no reason to think physics needs all the real numbers and > considerable evidence to think it does not. >
Einstein's field equations use PI, and so do Maxwell's equations. And I think some of the laws of physics use the natural logarithm. As I previously postulated, all one needs is some *continuous* range of some variable to determine new universes in which no copies emerge. I find the hypothesis of infinite copies of anything highly repugant, like the MWI, which I don't claim is a proof of anything. But a univere with zero copies seem more elegant than the opposite. AG > To my mind the strongest evidence is that a physical Turing Machine is > incapable of even approximating most real numbers, I happened to have > posted a proof of this yesterday on the "Observation versus assumption" > thread. > > Actually, physics might not even need all the rational numbers as there is > probably a grainy structure to both space and time. Distances can't get > smaller than the Planck Length and time shorter than the Planck Time. Maybe. > > >> >> 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,* >> > > Sure it can, space could have started out infinitely large 13.8 billion > years ago and still be expanding today, it could even be accelerating. The > radius of the observable universe is 45.5 billion light years ( the light > from the most distant galaxies took 13.8 billion years to reach us but > during that time the galaxies have been accelerating away from us) but that > doesn't mean there aren't galaxies much more distant than 45.5 billion > light years. > > 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bd21ae88-0362-4eea-a20a-0110587f2ae6%40googlegroups.com.
