On 9/29/2019 6:13 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 03:27:51PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:On 9/29/2019 3:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 06:27:16PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: When I wrote "lowest" I was assuming the context of MWI...not a single universe. The Bekenstein bound implies that the Hubble volume has an upper bound for information capacity of it's surface area in Planck units. This number is around 2.4e106. So as I read Zurek, he thinks this provides a kind of probability cutoff and branches less probable than 0.4e-106 have zero probability. And, more to the point, in the limit of large N, where N is the number of degrees of freedom in the environment the off diagonal terms of the reduced density matrix go to zero; but this cutoff makes them exactly zero for N>2.41e106. I haven't figured out many branchings it would take to reach this number, but with some 1e98 particles it wouldn't take very many. Brent Its an interesting idea, and a plausible mechanism for denying the "no cul-de-sac conjecture" and quantum immortality. However, I do have to wonder the significance of a 2.4x10^106 planck distance quare hubble volume. This surely is a geographical factoid rather than of fundamental significance. It's not just geographical. The Bekenstein bound on the information that can be contained within a the Hubble sphere depends on how big the sphere is which in turn depends on the expansion rate of the universe. The expansion rate of the universe might be a fundamental constant. BrentWouldn't it also depend on when you are observing the universe?
True. It wouldn't really be constant. Brent -- 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/19fdb5a5-c522-79aa-d99f-8b0fcf61802d%40verizon.net.
