On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 8:03:47 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 AM, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room; >>>>>>>>>>>> introducing Many Worlds creates hugely more complications than it >>>>>>>>>>>> purports >>>>>>>>>>>> to do away with; multiple, indeed infinite observers with the same >>>>>>>>>>>> memories >>>>>>>>>>>> and life histories for example. Give me a break. AG >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What about a single, infinite world in which everything is >>>>>>>>>>> duplicated to an arbitrary level of detail, including the Earth and >>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>> inhabitants, an infinite number of times? Is the bizarreness of >>>>>>>>>>> this idea >>>>>>>>>>> an argument for a finite world, ending perhaps at the limit of what >>>>>>>>>>> we can >>>>>>>>>>> see? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --stathis Papaioannou >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> FWIW, in my view we live in huge, but finite, expanding >>>>>>>>>> hypersphere, meaning in any direction, if go far enough, you return >>>>>>>>>> to your >>>>>>>>>> starting position. Many cosmologists say it's flat and thus >>>>>>>>>> infinite; not >>>>>>>>>> asymptotically flat and therefore spatially finite. Measurements >>>>>>>>>> cannot >>>>>>>>>> distinguish the two possibilities. I don't buy the former since they >>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>> concede it is finite in age. A Multiverse might exist, and that >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>> likely be infinite in space and time, with erupting BB universes, >>>>>>>>>> some like >>>>>>>>>> ours, most definitely not. Like I said, FWIW. AG >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK, but is the *strangeness* of a multiverse with multiple copies >>>>>>>>> of everything *in itself* an argument against it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> FWIW, I don't buy the claim that an infinite multiverse implies >>>>>>>> infinite copies of everything. Has anyone proved that? AG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there are uncountable possibilities for different universes, why >>>>>>> should there be any repetitions? I don't think infinite repetitions has >>>>>>> been proven, and I don't believe it. AG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If a finite subset of the universe has only a finite number of >>>>>> configurations and the Cosmological Principle is correct, then every >>>>>> finite >>>>>> subset should repeat. It might not; for example, from a radius of 10^100 >>>>>> m >>>>>> out it might be just be vacuum forever, or Donald Trump dolls. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Our universe might be finite, but the parameter variations of possible >>>>> universes might be uncountable. If so, there's no reason to think the >>>>> parameters characterizing our universe will come again in a random >>>>> process. >>>>> AG >>>>> >>>> >>>> Think of it this way; if our universe is represented by some number on >>>> the real line, and you throw darts randomly at something isomorphic to the >>>> real line, what's the chance of the dart landing on the number >>>> representing >>>> our universe?. ANSWER: ZERO. AG >>>> >>> >>> But the structures we may be interested in are finite. I feel that I am >>> the same person from moment to moment despite multiple changes in my body >>> that are grossly observable, so changes in the millionth decimal place of >>> some parameter won't bother me. The dart has to land on a blob, not on a >>> real number. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >> >> Don't you like thought experiments? I have shown that the parameters of >> our universe won't come up in a random process if the possibilities are >> uncountable (and possibly even if they're countable). Maybe you prefer a >> theory where Joe the Plumber shoots a single electron at a double slit and >> creates an uncountable number of identical universe except for the >> variation in outcomes. Does this make more sense to you? AG >> > > I think your distaste with MWI comes from an incorrect view of how > splitting occurs. Shooting a photon of at a slit doesn't instantly create > millions or infinite numbers of universes. >
*But that's NOT what the enthusiasts of the MWI claim. They say all possible results are realized, that is measured, in other universes, which come into existence when a measurement is made in this universe. AG* > All it does is put the photon into a "multi-valued" state. Any object this > photon later interacts with can then also become multi-valued. > > It works similarly to multiplication, if a photon "P" is in state: > (P-went-through-left-slit + P-went-through-right-slit) > And it interacts with a measuring devices "D", then the result is D * P, > or D * (P-went-through-left-slit + P-went-through-right-slit) or > (D*P-went-through-left-slit + D*P-went-through-right-slit) > > Physically, what this means is the superposition of the photon spread to > put the detector in a superposition. The detector is in both the state of > having detected the photon go through the left slit, and having detected > the photon go through the right slit. > > Now if you as a human read the result of the detector, then you (the > particles of your body and brain) also get put into a super-position, so > you get: > > Brain*(D*P-went-through-left-slit + D*P-went-through-right-slit) = > (Brain*D*P-went-through-left-slit + Brain*D*P-went-through-right-slit) > So there is now a brain that interacted with the detector that measured > the photon go through the left slit + a separate state where the brain > interacted with the detector that measured the photon go through the right > slit. Each of these two states has a consistent history and record. When > Wigner comes in and asks you what you saw, he too catches the contagion of > your super-posed particles, and splits. So it is not infinite universes > being duplicated, just ordinary particles which follow multiplication-like > rules when they interact with one another. I am attaching some slides I > put together to explain this better with some diagrams. > > Jason > > -- 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.
