> On 23 Sep 2019, at 00:46, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:36 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:39 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:34 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:46 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Thursday, September 19, 2019, Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > What I have shown is that it's hypothetically possible to have countable > universes wherein there are no repeats, no exact copies. AG > > It might be imaginable but there being no duplicates of any finite spaces > within an infinite space violates the Bekenstein bound and holographic > principle. > > That is simply false. The duplicates could contain no information. The > Bekenstein bound applies to black holes, suggesting that if the infinite > space has a finite matter density, it will close to form a BH. The > holographic principle is a conjecture based on disfavoured string theory. > > Both places absolute finite limits on the information content of a finite > volume containing finite energy. Is this no longer a favored theory in > physics? > > Holography is highly speculative. The Bekenstein bound does not apply to > non-static universes, such as our expanding universe. > > The Bekenstein bound doesn't apply to universe, it applies to volumes. Are > you aware of a way to physically store infinite information in a finite space > using finite energy?
Which is indeed the main task to do for a non-mechanist. Now, that might not be entirely true. Gödel did try to get a notion of non computable finite object, and recently I find a way to build a model of ZF(or even PA) in which such finite object are not computable, but those models are highly non standard, and such finite things are “truly” infinite, so I don’t believe Gödel’s idea could succeed, nor that he ever took this seriously, as other writing of him put doubt on this. So I agree with you, a non mechanist must conceive actual infinite brain capable of doing an infinity of task in a finite time. Only that can make him hoping to escape the UD statistics in arithmetic. Bruno > > > If a finite region does contain finite information, then in an infinite > (homogeneous) space, that same finite pattern will reappear infinitely. > > You overlook the possibility that the infinite repeats are of uninteresting > volumes, and that the initial conditions for some volumes may never repeat. > > But that would contradict standard cosmological models, where all variation > was seeded by quantum fluctuations occurring at all scales of expansion, such > that every conceivable pattern that is possible can happen and would happen > (and infinitely often in either a spatially infinite universe, or an > eternally inflating universe). > > > This is a consequence also of eternal inflation, and Guth used almost > identical language saying everything that can happen happens an infinite > number of times. > > Guth was wrong about a lot of things. Eternal inflation is an unproven > speculative idea. Not even inflation itself is entirely secure -- it is > increasingly becoming to look like a solution in search of a problem. All of > Guth's original motivations for inflation have come to very little. > > > Wasn't it strongly confirmed by the Planck CMB measurements? Guth and Linde > were awarded the Break Through Prize, which is even bigger than the Nobel > prize. Wouldn't that suggest there had been some support or confirmation of > the theory? > > https://s22380.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2015_TT_power_spectrum_Planck_600px.jpg > > <https://s22380.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2015_TT_power_spectrum_Planck_600px.jpg> > > This endeavor is a challenging one, explains Planck team member Charles > Lawrence (JPL). Cosmologists start with the splotchy CMB pattern. From that > they calculate what’s called the power spectrum, which reveals the strength > of the CMB’s fluctuations at different angular scales. (The power spectrum is > the wiggly graph at right.) The power spectrum is the cornerstone of the > whole effort: it’s this statistical map that cosmologists base their CMB > analysis on. > > The cosmologists then make some assumptions about what kind of universe > they’re dealing with — in astrospeak, they assume the standard lambda-CDM > model, which includes (1) a particular solution to the general relativistic > equations of gravity, (2) a universe that looks basically the same on large > scales and is expanding, (3) an early period of stupendous expansion called > inflation, and (4) quantum fluctuations that seeded today’s large-scale > matter distribution. > > > Jason > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhvMSyGny0tWROpOFESFNar65PvoSKJshNede7VCr8O0g%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhvMSyGny0tWROpOFESFNar65PvoSKJshNede7VCr8O0g%40mail.gmail.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/B206677E-BB3C-43F2-BC8A-350C49C62968%40ulb.ac.be.
