On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 6:39:02 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:18 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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. >
*That's your claim, but an assertion isn't a proof. Personally, I don't believe in repeats, and I think the proof, if there is one, has to do with continuity or uncountability. AG * > > >> *> 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/2c679851-fa03-42b2-a671-50dd605e42e2%40googlegroups.com.
