On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 5:02:11 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Sep 2019, at 17:18, Alan Grayson <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 14 Sep 2019, at 05:22, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> 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 >> >> >> >> Tegmark missed this? >> >> Deutsch did not, and in his book “fabric of reality”, he gave rather good >> argument in favour of Everett-type of multiverse having non countable >> universe. That makes sense with mechanism which give raise to a continuum >> (2^aleph_0) of histories, but the “equivalence class” brought by the >> measure can have lower cardinality, or bigger. Open problem, to say the >> least. >> > > *What you're not addressing is that with uncountable universes -- which I > haven't categorically denied could arise -- it's not obvious that any > repeats necessarily occur. I don't believe any repeats occur. AG * > > > > I assume the mechanist hypothesis, which shows that the repeat exist, > indeendly of the cardinality of the number of histories. At some point the > difference are not more relevant, due to the Digital mechanist truncate, > which makes the repeats even more numerous in the non countable case. >
*I don't believe in repeats and I haven't seen any proofs that they occur, just assertions from the usual suspects. AG * > > > > > *As to your general theory, that with mechanism (replacing brains and > presumably consciousness, with digital copies), computability, and the > natural numbers, we can derive the physical universe we observe. This is > your theory, isn't it? * > > > It is a theorem. Not a theory. My theory is not mine. It is usually > attributed to Descartes, and revised by Turing in the digital frame. > > > *If so, I just don't see it as explanatory. AG* > > > It explains many things, some trivially, like why physics seems so much > mathematical. But it is also the only theory that I know which explains why > there is a physical universe, instead of nothing. Then I found the > “many-histories” and its quantum logic by myself well before I realise that > the physicists were already there. In fact even when I studied quantum > mechanics, due to the collapse, I taught that QM was refuting mechanism. > Only by reading Everett will I realise that QM is an incredible > confirmation of the most startling (and shocking I guess) aspect of > mechanism: that we are multiplied "all the times”, and that physics is > “only” a statistics on all relative computations (“seen from inside”). > > Comare the three theory of physics: > > Copenhagen: > SWE + unintelligible dualist theory of mind on which nobody agree > > Everett > SWE + mechanism > > Your servitor > Mechanism. > > Not only Mechanism explains the quanta (qualitatively and quantatitavely) > but it explains the qualia, and protect consciousness and (first) person of > the materialist velleity to dismiss them. > > Bruno > > > > > 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 >> >>> >>> >>> Is there a copy of you >>> <https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf> >>> >>> * > Morevover, I don't believe a universe of finite age, such as ours >>>> which everyone more or less agrees began some 13.8 BYA, can be spatially >>>> infinite.* >>>> >>> >>> I see no reason in principle why something can't be finite along one >>> dimension and infinite along another dimension. >>> >> >> In general, one can of course have some dimensions finite and others >> infinite. But if *our* universe is *finite* *in time* since the BB, 13.8 >> BY, its spatial extent must be finite, since that's how long its been >> expanding. AG >> >> >> I agree with Grayson here. (Accepting a lot of premises, like the BB is >> the beginning of the physical reality, which I doubt). >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >>> 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/5a270b8e-3bf2-4d34-b0e7-4e0daa3cebce%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5a270b8e-3bf2-4d34-b0e7-4e0daa3cebce%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> >> > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e558a41c-3784-4298-80be-52a5e6f45f7f%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e558a41c-3784-4298-80be-52a5e6f45f7f%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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/7a2a5811-8c93-48a9-a64d-932ea16a4d70%40googlegroups.com.
