Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread scerir
Federico: The paradox consists of the fact that the theory of multiverses tells us that there must be infinite observers who experiment other physical laws. There is not only the possibility of being wrong, it is the model itself which proves to be wrong. In fact it tells us that there are

Fw: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Mirai Shounen
Any reason this list does not have a reply-to set to the mailing list address? my message mistakenly sent to scerir I think two things are being confused. First, the laws of physics, second, the laws of probability. A gas particle follow physical rules (movement, bumping, thermal vibrations)

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread scerir
Any reason this list does not have a reply-to set to the mailing list address? Better push the reply to all? Btw, I wrote: Now the question seems (to me) to be this one. What about the density matrix of the people A in the ***world*** A, representing some knowledge about the ***world*** B?

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Federico Marulli
-- Federico Marulli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello everybody, I read all your messages and I would like to say something about them. I think that the concept of magic universes considered by Matt King and Hal Finney and the demonstration that we are not in one of them is improper. If these magic

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Federico Marulli
I have just read my last message and I have realized there were a lot of mistakes dealing with the English language. I'm sorry for that, I hope to improve my writing skills as soon as possible. Federico

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Matt King
Hi Hal, I agree with everything you wrote about duplication...but I have to take issue with your last point. Hal Finney wrote: Another interesting result of this paper concerned daughter universes. In some models, it may be possible to trigger the formation of new inflating regions which

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Matt King
Hello Stathis and James, In answer to the first question, does the multiverse inlude perfect duplications of entire universes, the answer is yes with a but. Any particular universe in it can be sliced up in any number of ways, just as 1 = (1/n + 1/n + 1/n. n times) for any value of n.

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread scerir
Federico: I'm agree that informations are always subjective, but a physical or matematical model should not be too. And perhaps the paradox I propose is a four-order one. The problem in fact is that all the conclusions we could think are consequence of the hypotesis of applying the

[Fwd: a possible paradox]

2003-10-30 Thread Joao Leao
Joao Leao wrote: Your Principles are correct but the wording is not: you should change all your use of *possible* to 'contingent' and qualify as 'possible' instead all the invocations of 'world' not qualified with *actual*. This because possible/actual is a distinction that applies to worlds

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread James N Rose
Thanks, Matt, yes it helps. It helps me see that the math becomes problematic under the interpretations. Arbitrary constraints tint and skew what comes out. James Matt King wrote: Hello Stathis and James, In answer to the first question, does the multiverse inlude perfect

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread James N Rose
Dear Federico, In a mature and open 'exploring community', especially where people of different language backgrounds are concerned about coming together, the responsibility for extracting meaning and ideas falls as much on the readers as the writers. Syntax and grammer 'perfection' are secondary

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Frank Flynn
get fucked

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread CMR
get fucked Well, based upon the vast vocabulary as evidenced by this incisive argument by the poster, obviously a man of the vast intellect and insight of a George Bush! Impressive indeed! Cheers

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Benjamin Udell
Tegmark's multiverse theory doesn't make it appropriate to initiate -- or multiply -- the gratuitous. get fucked Well, based upon the vast vocabulary as evidenced by this incisive argument by the poster, obviously a man of the vast intellect and insight of a George Bush! Impressive

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Alexander B.
How do I unsubscribe from this list - there appears to be no DIGEST version and you should have an unsubscribe with every email. -- Original Message -- From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:27:25 -0800 Thanks, Matt, yes it

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread CMR
lighten up benny - Original Message - From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:57 AM Subject: Re: a possible paradox Tegmark's multiverse theory doesn't make it appropriate to initiate -- or multiply -- the gratuitous. get

RE: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Mike Connelly
Everytime this thread is responded to with the F word our IT department gets notified and, in turn, notifies me about a blip on the content filter. Its a pain in my ass, so please drop the word if responding. Thanks.

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Mirai Shounen
Actually I wasn't thinking about physically impossible things happening very rarely (QM) but only about regular physics vs probability of things happening. If you consider quantum mechanics you are right in an infinite universe there could be areas in which physics just happens to work very

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Joao Leao
The idea that the Universe has an funky topology with periodic boundaries of distant regions warped into each other like a Klein bottle or such, has been around for a while. The main speculator along these lines has been Jean-Pierre Luminet but most of the bru-ha-ha around the recent Nature

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Norman Samish
To repeat Tegmark's rhetorical question (and he's probably not the originator), If the multiverse is finite, what's outside it's edge? Norman - Original Message - From: Mirai Shounen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Federico Marulli [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30,

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Julian Suggate
I've not posted to this group previously, but I can't resist this one ;^) Hal Finney wrote: Matt King writes: I should point out that there does remain a vanishingly small possibility that we could be in one of the extremely 'magical' universes where both macroscopic and microscopic laws of

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Mirai and Federico and Friends, Could we cover the White Rabbit and Harry Potter universes by considering that for a pair of systems to interact their individual histories must not contradict each other? This, I think, would also cover interactions between the MWI branches. Kindest

Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-30 Thread David Kwinter
Another quickie: Assume I survive a car/plane crash which we assume could have many different quantum outcomes including me (dead || alive) Since I was the same person (entire life history) up until the crash/quantum 'branch' - then can't I assume that since there was at least one outcome

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-30 Thread Russell Standish
Yes - this is known as the Quantum Theory of Immortality. Do a Google search on the topic, and/or everything list archive search on that or QTI for numerous discussions of this idea... Cheers David Kwinter wrote: Another quickie: Assume I

Re: a possible paradox

2003-10-30 Thread Matt King
Hi Julian, Julian Suggate wrote: I've not posted to this group previously, but I can't resist this one ;^) Hal Finney wrote: Matt King writes: I should point out that there does remain a vanishingly small possibility that we could be in one of the extremely 'magical' universes where both

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-30 Thread Matt King
Hello David, David Kwinter wrote: Another quickie: Assume I survive a car/plane crash which we assume could have many different quantum outcomes including me (dead || alive) Since I was the same person (entire life history) up until the crash/quantum 'branch' - then can't I assume that since

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-30 Thread Hal Finney
David Kwinter, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes: Assume I survive a car/plane crash which we assume could have many different quantum outcomes including me (dead || alive) Since I was the same person (entire life history) up until the crash/quantum 'branch' - then can't I assume that since there

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-30 Thread Frank
Hi there, Hal, one nitpick about your comments: In the case of Quantum Immortality, I don't think it's a matter of taste, or interpretation. It is a theory that every one of us can and ultimately will test. Granted, we will only be aware of a positive result, but, nevertheless... cheers,

Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-30 Thread rmiller
It would seem that there are a finite number of ways to survive (or die in) any given car accident. It that's the case, the number of many world branches would be limited by this value. Taken longitudinally, it would seem that the architecture of the world lines of these and similar events

Re: Quantum accident survivor

2003-10-30 Thread David Kwinter
On Thursday, October 30, 2003, at 08:11 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: Assume I survive a car/plane crash which we assume could have many different quantum outcomes including me (dead || alive) Since I was the same person (entire life history) up until the crash/quantum 'branch' - then can't I

Re: multiverse paradox of a number of posts back

2003-10-30 Thread Eric Hawthorne
Someone wrote: The paradox consists of the fact that the theory of multiverses tells us that there must be infinite observers who experiment other physical laws. There is not only the possibility of being wrong, it is the model itself which proves to be wrong. In fact it tells us that there