I've read the paper more closely and I think I understand it somewhat
better.
The paradox in the paper is actually closely related to the comments with
which I concluded my earlier message. What they are saying is that if
we are part of a Poincare recurrence, it is overwhelmingly likely that
On Saturday, August 17, 2002, at 11:37 PM, Hal Finney wrote:
Now you might say, so what, the whole idea that we formed in this way
was so absurd that no one would ever take it seriously anyway. But the
authors of this paper seem to be saying that if you assume that there is
a positive
Tim May writes:
OK, let us assume for the sake of argument that we should be
overwhelmingly likely to be living in one of these time-reversed
cycles (which I distinguish from bounces back to a Big Bang state,
the more common view of cycles).
By the same Bayesian reasoning, it is
Dyson, L., Kleban, M. Susskind, L. Disturbing implications of a
cosmological constant. Preprint http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0208013,
(2002).
Most of this paper is way over my head. I need to read the ending much
more carefully in order to understand its conclusions. But I wanted to
On 17-Aug-02, Hal Finney wrote:
Dyson, L., Kleban, M. Susskind, L. Disturbing
implications of a cosmological constant. Preprint
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0208013, (2002).
Most of this paper is way over my head. I need to read the
ending much more carefully in order to understand its
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 04:55:59PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
I think what the paper says is that when matter/energy have
thinned out enough so that we have essentially empty space
again, a de Sitter universe, a vacuum fluctuation can start
a new universe.
You're not understanding the paper
On 17-Aug-02, Wei Dai wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 04:55:59PM -0700, Brent Meeker
wrote:
I think what the paper says is that when matter/energy
have thinned out enough so that we have essentially empty
space again, a de Sitter universe, a vacuum fluctuation
can start a new universe.
- Forwarded message from Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:28:43 -0700
From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Nature Article
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:45:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dyson, L., Kleban, M. Susskind, L. Disturbing
I think that the difference is that invoking the SIA does not affect the
conclusion of the paper.
Saibal
Wei Dai wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:45:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dyson, L., Kleban, M. Susskind, L. Disturbing implications of a
cosmological constant. Preprint
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:28:28PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
I think that the difference is that invoking the SIA does not affect the
conclusion of the paper.
Why do you say that? I think SIA affects the conclusion of the paper the
same way it affects the Doomsday argument.
It's kind of
PROTECTED]
Aan: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: donderdag 15 augustus 2002 23:46
Onderwerp: Re: Doomsday-like argument in cosmology
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:28:28PM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
I think that the difference is that invoking the SIA does not affect
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 12:26:10AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
I haven't read the paper in detail, so I could be wrong. Consider the two
alternatives:
1) true cosmological constant
2) no true cosmological constant
We also assume SIA. Is it the case that there are much fewer observers in
12 matches
Mail list logo