On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:08:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/26/2017 10:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 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. > > > If there is a repetition, is it really a different universe? > > Yes, because it would be located in a different position in the multiverse. AG
> What happened to Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles? > > Brent > -- 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.
