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
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)
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?
--
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
get fucked
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
