On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:52:32 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote >>> >>> > >>>> You're conflating Multiverse with the MWI. >>>> >>> >>> >>> You can't have the MWI without the Multiverse, and if there is a >>> Multiverse then the MWI explains a lot. >>> >>> There are about 10^80 atoms in the observable universe and obviously >>> there is a finite number of ways 10^80 atoms can be arranged in a sphere >>> with a radius of 13.8 billion light years; so if the >>> entire >>> universe (not to be confused with the observable universe) is infinite >>> then at a very large but still finite distance things must repeat and there >>> is a universe identical to our own, and at another hyper large distance >>> there is a universe identical to ours except that the freckle on my right >>> thumb is on my left thumb instead. And at a even greater distance one >>> second after a John Clark hits send on a message identical to this one all >>> the air molecules in the room he is in go to the other side of the room due >>> to random thermal vibrations and that John Clark suffocates. Bizarre events >>> like that are not impossible just very very unlikely, but if the universe >>> is really infinite then everything that doesn't violate the laws of physics >>> will happen, and the Many World people say that's what the wave function is >>> trying to tell us, everything that can happen will happen. >>> >> >> The concept of Multiverse and Many Worlds come from entirely different >> contexts and theories, so the idea that they are somehow connected or >> related strikes me a patently false. Moreover, the idea that if the >> universe is infinite (in some parameter; spatial extent, age, whatever), >> then anything that can happen, will happen, is IMO unproven and almost >> certainly false. For example, we know that irrational numbers exist, but in >> an infinite string of digits representing some irrational number, there are >> no repetitions of any subset strings. But there should be according to your >> conjecture. >> > > *Or look at it this way; if your conjecture were true, it would be > impossible for irrational numbers to exist, since recurring repetitions of > subset strings would be impossible to avoid.* >
I think my conjecture above is incorrect. Although finite strings of any length would repeat in an infinite random string, they would not repeat at regular intervals that would cause the original string to fail to represent an irrational number. OTOH, I think we can agree that necessary repetitions of whatever in a FINITE universe cannot be expected. Thus, if our universe is finite in extent and number of particles, there will be no automatic or expected repeats of anything. I submit that our universe is, indeed, finite (observable and unobservable regions) because it is FINITE IN AGE. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
