On Wed, Dec 6, 2023, 5:40 PM Tomas Pales wrote:
> A split into a finite number of worlds would solve the measure problem but
> where did he get his finite number?
My guess is he is using something like the number of distinguishable
quantum states given by the Bekenstein bound, or the total
A split into a finite number of worlds would solve the measure problem but
where did he get his finite number? And why are physicists like Tegmark and
Greene still talking about the measure problem if the number is finite?
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:52:31 PM UTC+1 Jason Resch wrote:
>
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023, 7:24 AM Tomas Pales wrote:
> But isn't there a problem when the number of worlds after the split is
> infinite? In popular science books they always write that if the number of
> worlds is infinite then there are different ways of counting the
> probabilities and so we can
But isn't there a problem when the number of worlds after the split is
infinite? In popular science books they always write that if the number of
worlds is infinite then there are different ways of counting the
probabilities and so we can arrive at different probabilities than those
given by
https://youtu.be/BU8Lg_R2DL0
This is timely.
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 view
5 matches
Mail list logo
