On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 3:39:44 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:
> > > On 2/3/2021 12:25 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 10:55:13 AM UTC-7 [email protected] > wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 10:05 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> * > in GR universes evolve in time, but cannot instantaneously evolve >>> faster than the SoL.* >>> >> >> In 1905 Einstein discovered Special Relativity and said nothing >> whatsoever could move faster than light, but by 1915 he had found >> General Relativity and had to amend that to some extent, he still insisted >> that matter or energy or information cannot move through space faster than >> light, but he placed no speed limit on how fast space itself can expand. >> >> >> *> In the MWI, worlds come into existence fully formed as it were, that >>> is, replete with copies of observers. You want to have your cake and eat as >>> well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently instantaneously creating >>> fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. AG * >>> >> >> MWI doesn't say if a new universe is created instantaneously >> > > > *IMO, it surely does! Deutsch makes a right turn in his car, and > immediately another universe is created where a copy of Deutsch makes a > left turn (and numerous other turns!). I see no way around this violation > of GR. AG * > > > You need to think of better examples. Something like Deutsch making a > decision is with probability near 1.0 a purely classical event. If it has > some quantum component in its causation it was probably weeks earlier and > in concert with thousands of classical effects. > > Brent > *It's just a thought experiment which makes the necessary point. Assume Deutsch can take alternate routes with the decision depending on whether he measures spin UP or DN. Would this work? AG * > > > or if the new creation only comes into existence at the speed of light; it >> doesn't say because it does it need to, it works fine either way. MWI Is >> agnostic about that. >> >> >>> *> If your claim that the net energy of the universe is zero is >>> associated with the universe as a whole, not for some part of it, then it >>> must be speculative. No calculation can be done to establish it. Correct?* >> >> >> Correct, that can only be established through observation and >> experimentation. However if General Relativity is correct and if empty >> space does contain residual vacuum energy (both those things can only be >> determined through observation and experimentation but the evidence is >> piling up that both are correct) then the net amount of energy in the >> universe is indeed zero. >> >> 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/8f21824c-c1d7-4dd2-98ca-c78da0969e80n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f21824c-c1d7-4dd2-98ca-c78da0969e80n%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/a54ec42e-24e9-4f11-89be-4f3d48ba6998n%40googlegroups.com.
