On Saturday, February 1, 2025 at 5:57:43 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 11:12 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: *> If the universe is spatially infinite, it must have begun as spatially infinite* *Yes.* *> But I have a problem with such an initial condition since it seems to contradict the BB by adding an additional singularity (to infinite density at T=0). * *Infinity + infinity = an Infiniti of equal cardinality to the previous two. And an initial condition in which you don't have to specify a boundary, which would be the case if we're dealing with infinite space, is simpler than an initial condition in which you do have to specify a boundary, which would be the case if we're dealing with finite space. That's why it's far easier to calculate the gravitational field around a dense rod that is infinitely long than a rod that is only finitely long, and the same thing is true of calculating the electrical field around a charged rod, or a magnetic field around a current carrying wire. In all these cases infinite things are much easier to deal with than finite things. * *As to the question why there is something rather than nothing, it's beginning to look like the answer MIGHT be because the most fundamental laws of physics dictate that nothingness, that is to say infinite unbounded homogeneity, is unstable.* * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* hub It could be a 4D surface which is approximately spherical, and spatially finite without a boundary (approximately spherical because the Cosmological Red Shift is not exactly uniform in all directions). AG On Friday, January 31, 2025 at 6:10:54 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 1:45 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: *> the basis for claiming that everything that's possible to happen, must happen, is a question you've never answered* *You've asked that question many times and I've answered it many times, and my answer is always the same; the claim is derived from the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, Schrodinger's Equation means what it says. So far nobody has ever performed an experiment that disproves that assumption, if anybody ever does then Many Worlds is dead wrong.* *>Whichever turn you take, there exists an uncountable set of paths, corresponding to the set of possible curves* *Maybe. Maybe not. There is no doubt that mathematically the set of all possible curves is uncountably infinite, but we're talking about physics not mathematics, so the answer is not clear at all. There might be an uncountably infinite number of paths, there might be a countably infinite number of paths, there might only be an astronomical number to an astronomical power FINITE number of paths; it all depends on if time and/or space is continuous or discrete. Schrodinger's Equation is an agnostic on that question, and so is Many Worlds.* -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d076169a-2319-42d0-babd-8d132c2c3ab6n%40googlegroups.com.
