Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 12 Feb 2013, at 03:22, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/4/2013 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Feb 2013, at 20:25, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/1/2013 5:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Ok, do you figure that a human being can be considered an entity under that definition? Hi Telmo, Recall the phrase I think therefore I am. The I is a fixed point under variations of content of experience. Yes. And Descartes limited to the doubts experiences. He tried to doubt all propositions, but then he has to doubt the proposition asserting that he doubts all propositions, that is conceiving certainty. Dubito ergo cogito. (I doubt thus I think) Cogito ergo sum. (I think thus I am). Hi Bruno, I would add the temporal tense and state: Cogito, ergo eram, I think, therefore I was. But that does not follow. This is Löbian, with the classical definition, making Dt such a fixed point. I agree. I believe that this is exactly how the ambiguous self of self or I obtains. I don't see the ambiguity. Unless it is the usual ambiguity between truth and provability, G* and G. Cf G* proves Bp equivalent with Bp p, and G does not. But neither Descartes, nor any correct Löbian machine, can prove Dt, although the reasoning above validly confirm, from the first person point of view, consciousness as undoubtable, with consciousness being something like Dt?, a sort of basic, automated, instinctive, elementary faith in a reality. Could you elaborate on what would happen *if* any correct machine could indeed prove Dt? What would be the implications? The machine would eventually prove that 0 = 1, implying that you are the pope, notably. Thomas Slezak made a similar analysis of the cogito of Descartes. References in the general biblio of Conscience and Mecanisme. This need the classical definition of knowledge, which is given here by Thaetetus definition in arithmetic, thanks to incompleteness (the machine cannot know that Bp and Bp p are equivalent). I am not happy with this negative type of proof. I would like to see some kind of constructive argument or even an approximation. The proof is not negative. And it is constructive, even if bearing on an impossibility. The machine can build the conterexample. The result can be said to be negative, but math is full of such non go theorems. We can't change that at will. This entails the fact that we can be genuinely aware that we dream, but we can never be genuinely aware that we are awake, (as the usual Turing emulation thought experiences illustrate). This seems to me to be analogous to we can know for sure that X' is a fake or simulation of X and not the real thing, but it presupposes a 3p judgement. If one only allows 1p judgements and finite computational resources, then one must be a fallibist in one's claims. ? Usually the 3p discourse is always fallible. Only a part of the 1p discourse (our own consciousness) is not fallible. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 2/17/2013 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Feb 2013, at 03:22, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/4/2013 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Feb 2013, at 20:25, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/1/2013 5:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Ok, do you figure that a human being can be considered an entity under that definition? Hi Telmo, Recall the phrase I think therefore I am. The I is a fixed point under variations of content of experience. Yes. And Descartes limited to the doubts experiences. He tried to doubt all propositions, but then he has to doubt the proposition asserting that he doubts all propositions, that is conceiving certainty. Dubito ergo cogito. (I doubt thus I think) Cogito ergo sum. (I think thus I am). Hi Bruno, I would add the temporal tense and state: Cogito, ergo eram, I think, therefore I was. But that does not follow. HI Bruno, How so? Is the content of our knowledge always in the present tense? Does this not imply that we are asking for a degenerasy of the temporal tense? If we accept the degenerasy we must be consistent with this in further arguments that require consideration of knowledge. This is Löbian, with the classical definition, making Dt such a fixed point. I agree. I believe that this is exactly how the ambiguous self of self or I obtains. I don't see the ambiguity. Unless it is the usual ambiguity between truth and provability, G* and G. Cf G* proves Bp equivalent with Bp p, and G does not. What, generally, acts to make this distinction between truth and provability? But neither Descartes, nor any correct Löbian machine, can prove Dt, although the reasoning above validly confirm, from the first person point of view, consciousness as undoubtable, with consciousness being something like Dt?, a sort of basic, automated, instinctive, elementary faith in a reality. Could you elaborate on what would happen *if* any correct machine could indeed prove Dt? What would be the implications? The machine would eventually prove that 0 = 1, implying that you are the pope, notably. How can we even consider the concept of when here if we have discounted a difference between past, present and future? Thomas Slezak made a similar analysis of the cogito of Descartes. References in the general biblio of Conscience and Mecanisme. This need the classical definition of knowledge, which is given here by Thaetetus definition in arithmetic, thanks to incompleteness (the machine cannot know that Bp and Bp p are equivalent). I am not happy with this negative type of proof. I would like to see some kind of constructive argument or even an approximation. The proof is not negative. And it is constructive, even if bearing on an impossibility. The machine can build the conterexample. The result can be said to be negative, but math is full of such non go theorems. We can't change that at will. For me, constructability involves consideration of resource availability but you discount that notion. So why do you invoke constructability here? We cannot change our premises at will! Consider the proof that the halting problem is intractable. ISTM that the halting problem is directly showing that constructability of proofs is dependent on resource availability. If a recursively enumerable function cannot generate a proof is it because there is a limit to ability of recursively enumerable functions. Could there exist a class of functions that do not have this limitation? This entails the fact that we can be genuinely aware that we dream, but we can never be genuinely aware that we are awake, (as the usual Turing emulation thought experiences illustrate). This seems to me to be analogous to we can know for sure that X' is a fake or simulation of X and not the real thing, but it presupposes a 3p judgement. If one only allows 1p judgements and finite computational resources, then one must be a fallibist in one's claims. ? Usually the 3p discourse is always fallible. Only a part of the 1p discourse (our own consciousness) is not fallible. This argues against a TOE, IMHO. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 2/4/2013 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Feb 2013, at 20:25, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/1/2013 5:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Ok, do you figure that a human being can be considered an entity under that definition? Hi Telmo, Recall the phrase I think therefore I am. The I is a fixed point under variations of content of experience. Yes. And Descartes limited to the doubts experiences. He tried to doubt all propositions, but then he has to doubt the proposition asserting that he doubts all propositions, that is conceiving certainty. Dubito ergo cogito. (I doubt thus I think) Cogito ergo sum. (I think thus I am). Hi Bruno, I would add the temporal tense and state: Cogito, ergo eram, I think, therefore I was. This is Löbian, with the classical definition, making Dt such a fixed point. I agree. I believe that this is exactly how the ambiguous self of self or I obtains. But neither Descartes, nor any correct Löbian machine, can prove Dt, although the reasoning above validly confirm, from the first person point of view, consciousness as undoubtable, with consciousness being something like Dt?, a sort of basic, automated, instinctive, elementary faith in a reality. Could you elaborate on what would happen *if* any correct machine could indeed prove Dt? What would be the implications? Thomas Slezak made a similar analysis of the cogito of Descartes. References in the general biblio of Conscience and Mecanisme. This need the classical definition of knowledge, which is given here by Thaetetus definition in arithmetic, thanks to incompleteness (the machine cannot know that Bp and Bp p are equivalent). I am not happy with this negative type of proof. I would like to see some kind of constructive argument or even an approximation. This entails the fact that we can be genuinely aware that we dream, but we can never be genuinely aware that we are awake, (as the usual Turing emulation thought experiences illustrate). This seems to me to be analogous to we can know for sure that X' is a fake or simulation of X and not the real thing, but it presupposes a 3p judgement. If one only allows 1p judgements and finite computational resources, then one must be a fallibist in one's claims. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 01 Feb 2013, at 20:25, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/1/2013 5:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Ok, do you figure that a human being can be considered an entity under that definition? Hi Telmo, Recall the phrase I think therefore I am. The I is a fixed point under variations of content of experience. Yes. And Descartes limited to the doubts experiences. He tried to doubt all propositions, but then he has to doubt the proposition asserting that he doubts all propositions, that is conceiving certainty. Dubito ergo cogito. (I doubt thus I think) Cogito ergo sum. (I think thus I am). This is Löbian, with the classical definition, making Dt such a fixed point. But neither Descartes, nor any correct Löbian machine, can prove Dt, although the reasoning above validly confirm, from the first person point of view, consciousness as undoubtable, with consciousness being something like Dt?, a sort of basic, automated, instinctive, elementary faith in a reality. Thomas Slezak made a similar analysis of the cogito of Descartes. References in the general biblio of Conscience and Mecanisme. This need the classical definition of knowledge, which is given here by Thaetetus definition in arithmetic, thanks to incompleteness (the machine cannot know that Bp and Bp p are equivalent). This entails the fact that we can be genuinely aware that we dream, but we can never be genuinely aware that we are awake, (as the usual Turing emulation thought experiences illustrate). Bruno On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What's an entity?
Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some
kind of fixed point theorem.
Ok, do you figure that a human being can be considered an entity under that
definition?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified.
On 1/31/2013 8:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
*Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
number, whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
�
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
�
�
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
牋� I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos� Soler
Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
,�Manuel
Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last
revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:12:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 6:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago. Some interesting etymology too: entity (n.) 1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive entis) a thing, proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse be (see is), to render Greek philosophical term to on that which is (from neuter of prp. of einai to be; see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in English is from 1620s. entire (adj.) late 14c., from Old French entier whole, unbroken, intact, complete, from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer). A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity has a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual reference could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation which emphasizes its closure'. Craig Hi Craig, Position is one kind of dimension that is identifiable via a fixed point, for example: Craig is at such and such an address. Hi Stephen, I would tend to consider address just another kind of position though. Is there an example of something which fixed point theorem addresses which is not a dimension which can be defined by position? Isn't the act of fixing a point the same as formalizing a position? Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Stephen P. King
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-31, 17:38:28
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What's an entity?
Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of
fixed point theorem.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified.
On 1/31/2013 8:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John
Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 2/1/2013 5:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Ok, do you figure that a human being can be considered an entity under that definition? Hi Telmo, Recall the phrase I think therefore I am. The I is a fixed point under variations of content of experience. On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 2/1/2013 8:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:12:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 6:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago. Some interesting etymology too: entity (n.) 1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive entis) a thing, proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse be (see is), to render Greek philosophical term to on that which is (from neuter of prp. of einai to be; see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in English is from 1620s. entire (adj.) late 14c., from Old French entier whole, unbroken, intact, complete, from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer). A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity has a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual reference could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation which emphasizes its closure'. Craig Hi Craig, Position is one kind of dimension that is identifiable via a fixed point, for example: Craig is at such and such an address. Hi Stephen, I would tend to consider address just another kind of position though. Is there an example of something which fixed point theorem addresses which is not a dimension which can be defined by position? Isn't the act of fixing a point the same as formalizing a position? Craig Hi Craig, No, its about the relation between object and context in a dynamic sense. Look at the variability in fixed points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem Look at what all have in common: Some transformation on a collection, some closure of that which is transformed and some invariant - the fixed point. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:29:21 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 2/1/2013 8:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:12:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 6:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago. Some interesting etymology too: entity (n.) 1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive entis) a thing, proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse be (see is), to render Greek philosophical term to on that which is (from neuter of prp. of einai to be; see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in English is from 1620s. entire (adj.) late 14c., from Old French entier whole, unbroken, intact, complete, from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer). A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity has a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual reference could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation which emphasizes its closure'. Craig Hi Craig, Position is one kind of dimension that is identifiable via a fixed point, for example: Craig is at such and such an address. Hi Stephen, I would tend to consider address just another kind of position though. Is there an example of something which fixed point theorem addresses which is not a dimension which can be defined by position? Isn't the act of fixing a point the same as formalizing a position? Craig Hi Craig, No, its about the relation between object and context in a dynamic sense. Look at the variability in fixed points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem Look at what all have in common: Some transformation on a collection, some closure of that which is transformed and some invariant - the fixed point. Oh, sorry I didn't realize that was a specifically defined term. F-p theorem seems too narrow to me to contain the casual use of 'entity', as x or f(x) is already an entity regardless of any operations of coordination of values. A ghost in a dream can be an entity, or a legal entity can be purely conceptual. Unless you are looking at 'entity' as a mathematical description only. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 2/1/2013 3:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:29:21 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 2/1/2013 8:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:12:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 6:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago. Some interesting etymology too: entity (n.) 1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive entis) a thing, proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse be (see is), to render Greek philosophical term to on that which is (from neuter of prp. of einai to be; see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in English is from 1620s. entire (adj.) late 14c., from Old French entier whole, unbroken, intact, complete, from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer). A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity has a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual reference could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation which emphasizes its closure'. Craig Hi Craig, Position is one kind of dimension that is identifiable via a fixed point, for example: Craig is at such and such an address. Hi Stephen, I would tend to consider address just another kind of position though. Is there an example of something which fixed point theorem addresses which is not a dimension which can be defined by position? Isn't the act of fixing a point the same as formalizing a position? Craig Hi Craig, No, its about the relation between object and context in a dynamic sense. Look at the variability in fixed points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem Look at what all have in common: Some transformation on a collection, some closure of that which is transformed and some invariant - the fixed point. Oh, sorry I didn't realize that was a specifically defined term. F-p theorem seems too narrow to me to contain the casual use of 'entity', as x or f(x) is already an entity regardless of any operations of coordination of values. A ghost in a dream can be an entity, or a legal entity can be purely conceptual. Unless you are looking at 'entity' as a mathematical description only. Craig Hi Craig, What ever the entity is, it is its representation that we actually discuss, thus it is 'purely conceptual'. I am going for a broad strokes definition that can be adapted to specific cases... -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Telmo Menezes
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
Subject: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
?
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
?
?
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
?? I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos? Soler Gil,?Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John
Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
DreamMail?- The first mail software supporting source tracking
?www.dreammail.org
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
?
?
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
In the one universe model, where does the extra computational power of
quantum computers come from?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
*Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
�
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
�
�
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
牋� I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos� Soler
Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
,�Manuel
Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last
revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
*DreamMail*�- The first mail software supporting source tracking �
www.dreammail.org
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified.
On 1/31/2013 8:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
*Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
number, whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough
rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
�
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than
infinite universes.
�
�
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
牋� I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos� Soler Gil
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1,�Manuel
Alfonseca
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 Jan
2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by
Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical relativistic
cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based on
the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets
and living beings must be repeated an infinite number
of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in
the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the
idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space
cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence
of current physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be
seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John
Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What's an entity?
Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some
kind of fixed point theorem.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified.
On 1/31/2013 8:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com
*Receiver:* everything-list
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
*Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in
Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the
precise number, whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough
rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
�
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs
than infinite universes.
�
�
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories
in Space
Hi,
牋� I think this paper might be fodder for a nice
discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos� Soler Gil
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1,�Manuel
Alfonseca
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23
Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one
by Ellis and Brundrit, based on classical
relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of
quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that,
in an infinite universe, planets and living
beings must be repeated an infinite number of
times. We point to some possible shortcomings in
the arguments of these authors. We conclude that
the idea of an infinite repetition of histories
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a
consequence of current physics and cosmology.
Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright}
in the terminology of John Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What's an entity?
Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some
kind of fixed point theorem.
Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago.
Some interesting etymology too:
entity (n.)
1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive
entis) a thing, proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse be (see is), to
render Greek philosophical term to on that which is (from neuter of prp.
of einai to be; see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in
English is from 1620s.
entire (adj.)
late 14c., from Old French entier whole, unbroken, intact, complete,
from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer).
A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity has
a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual reference
could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation which
emphasizes its closure'.
Craig
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Stephen P. King
step...@charter.netjavascript:
wrote:
IMHO more than one universe per entity is unjustified.
On 1/31/2013 8:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Telmo Menezes
IMHO more than one universe is unjustified.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Telmo Menezes javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:10:08
*Subject:* Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise
number, whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough
rcl...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
�
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
�
�
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
牋� I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco Jos� Soler
Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
,�Manuel
Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last
revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 1/31/2013 6:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:38:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/31/2013 4:46 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What's an entity? Any system whose canonical description can be associated with some kind of fixed point theorem. Nice. Interestingly this just came up on another list five minutes ago. Some interesting etymology too: entity (n.) 1590s, from Late Latin entitatem (nom. entitas), from ens (genitive entis) a thing, proposed by Caesar as prp. of esse be (see is), to render Greek philosophical term to on that which is (from neuter of prp. of einai to be; see essence). Originally abstract; concrete sense in English is from 1620s. entire (adj.) late 14c., from Old French entier whole, unbroken, intact, complete, from Latin integrum (nom. integer; see integer). A slightly different meaning when we formalize it... a literal entity has a thingness definable by position. A more figurative or casual reference could mean like a 'the aspect of a presence or representation which emphasizes its closure'. Craig Hi Craig, Position is one kind of dimension that is identifiable via a fixed point, for example: Craig is at such and such an address. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
Subject: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco José Soler Gil, Manuel Alfonseca
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit, based
on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based
on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in
an infinite universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite
number of times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories
in space cannot be considered strictly speaking a consequence of current
physics and cosmology. Such ideas should be seen rather as examples of
{\guillemotleft}ironic science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John
Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi Roger,
I find it harder to believe in finite universes. Why the precise number,
whatever it is?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
It's easier to believe in salvation through faith or UFOs than infinite
universes.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2013-01-28, 09:20:33
*Subject:* About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco José Soler
Gilhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
, Manuel
Alfonsecahttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last
revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and
Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of
which conclude that, in an infinite universe, planets and living beings
must be repeated an infinite number of times. We point to some possible
shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We conclude that the idea
of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be considered
strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.
--
Onward!
Stephen
*DreamMail* - The first mail software supporting source tracking
www.dreammail.org
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Hi,
I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco José Soler Gil
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1,Manuel Alfonseca
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1), last revised 23 Jan
2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and Brundrit,
based on
classical relativistic cosmology, the other by Garriga and Vilenkin, based
on the DH
interpretation of quantum mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an
infinite
universe, planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of
times. We
point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of these authors. We
conclude
that the idea of an infinite repetition of histories in space cannot be
considered
strictly speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
ideas should
be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the
terminology of John Horgan.
The idea that there are infinitely many universe (or an infinitely big one) and therefore
everything must be repeated infinitely many times is incoherent. If there's a copy of
this universe, then it *IS* this universe by Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles.
Similarly, if this universe is infinitely large it must have infinitely many different
possible states - otherwise it would start repeating somewhere and, as I remarked above, a
repeat is just the same thing double counted. So what makes sense is to say the universe
(whether conceived as spacetime or as a Hilbert space) is unbounded, it can always get
bigger and have more states - which seems to be supported by the expansion of the universe.
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On 1/28/2013 4:22 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Hi,
I think this paper might be fodder for a nice discussion!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295
About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
Francisco José Soler Gil
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Gil_F/0/1/0/all/0/1,Manuel
Alfonseca http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Alfonseca_M/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 22 Jan 2013 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.5295v1),
last revised 23 Jan 2013 (this version, v2))
This paper analyzes two different proposals, one by Ellis and
Brundrit, based on classical relativistic cosmology, the other by
Garriga and Vilenkin, based on the DH interpretation of quantum
mechanics, both of which conclude that, in an infinite universe,
planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of
times. We point to some possible shortcomings in the arguments of
these authors. We conclude that the idea of an infinite
repetition of histories in space cannot be considered strictly
speaking a consequence of current physics and cosmology. Such
ideas should be seen rather as examples of {\guillemotleft}ironic
science{\guillemotright} in the terminology of John Horgan.
The idea that there are infinitely many universe (or an infinitely big
one) and therefore everything must be repeated infinitely many times
is incoherent. If there's a copy of this universe, then it *IS* this
universe by Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles. Similarly, if this
universe is infinitely large it must have infinitely many different
possible states - otherwise it would start repeating somewhere and, as
I remarked above, a repeat is just the same thing double counted. So
what makes sense is to say the universe (whether conceived as
spacetime or as a Hilbert space) is unbounded, it can always get
bigger and have more states - which seems to be supported by the
expansion of the universe.
Brent
--
Hi Brent,
I agree, but we also have to count those universes that are
conformally isomorphic as Leibniz equivalent as well, which identifies
all the different sized versions of a given universe.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: About the Infinite Repetition of Histories in Space
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 01:22:22PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: The idea that there are infinitely many universe (or an infinitely big one) and therefore everything must be repeated infinitely many times is incoherent. If there's a copy of this universe, then it *IS* this universe by Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles. Similarly, if this universe is infinitely large it must have infinitely many different possible states - otherwise it would start repeating somewhere and, as I remarked above, a repeat is just the same thing double counted. So what makes sense is to say the universe (whether conceived as spacetime or as a Hilbert space) is unbounded, it can always get bigger and have more states - which seems to be supported by the expansion of the universe. Brent Or the flipside is that a universe with finite number of states must be bounded in space and time. What I wonder is the case where the universe has a countably infinite number of states? Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
