> On 3 Feb 2021, at 18:54, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 10:05 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <mailto:[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 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 MWI is neutral on this, then we have to accept that the histories split at the speed of the interaction, which allows the system to get entangled by the usual terror product rule. The idea that the “splitting” of the universe can be instantaneous does not make music sense to me. > > > 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. OK with this. And that remains true for the vast majority of the cosmic branches, but not necessarily all. The problem here is that both universe and multiverse are informal terms in need of more precision, both physical and metaphysical. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0A9bG7km12%2BTaY5tZfxWmE5UzkbLDC82n4vdVVC1pCWw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0A9bG7km12%2BTaY5tZfxWmE5UzkbLDC82n4vdVVC1pCWw%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/21BC753B-A3A9-4C3F-8344-2318FD241194%40ulb.ac.be.
