On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:18 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If, as this one does, all the Big Bang's have a finite number of >> particles and are all of finite spatial extent then there is only a finite >> number of ways those particles can be arranged. But if there are a >> infinite number of those Big Bang's then in one of them (actually in a >> infinite number of them) there must be an arrangement of particles that are >> identical to you in every way except he spells his last name "Greyson" not >> "Grayson". So I guess both Mr. Greyson and Mr. Grayson have changed their >> minds and now believe in the existence of the Multiverse. >> > > *> I think you're making the assumption that the possible arrangement of a > finite set of particles of finite extent corresponds to a countable set. > But if space is continuous, that assumption fails, and with it your entire > thesis.* > Regardless of if there are a infinite number of particles in a line an inch long or just a ridiculously astronomically large number of them there would certainly be enough to include something that had all your observable characteristics except for the way it spelled its last name. > *> There is only ONE Grayson, thankfully. * > Um... there are two ways that could be interpreted.... 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/CAJPayv01CNaTV1JUqO1gP8q_-HE_bLpbSCnxtahcdw%2BngH1M4w%40mail.gmail.com.
