99.99...% dead ends

From: Devin Harris <harrisdev.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:31:43 -0700

Higgo James wrote:

> > From this moment on, 99.99...% of subsequent branches are
> > dead ends, due to a vacuum collapse, or perhaps simply
> > because there are no causal relationships: the branch will
> > lead to a world of random disorder. But we don't experience
> > the worlds we don't exist in, and we are still left with an
> > infinite number of worlds ahead of us. This process continues
> > ad infinitum.
> >
> > The contributor base of the everything-list is currently in the
> > thrall of these ideas despite Jacques Mallah's valient lone
> > efforts to dissuade us. Any fresh ideas would be very
> > welcome.
> >
> > With best wishes,
> > James Higgo

If we did find ourselves in such a world, near an ending at any one
state such as a vacuum, we should and would undoubtedly reason that all
space-time paths inevitably converge toward such a state, similar to how
we perhaps unconsciously assume that all other paths of space-time,
within in all the MW's of QM most likely begin highly similar to our
own, this versus expecting that other partially conceivable worlds exist
that are without temporal beginnings or perhaps a set of collapsing
worlds with no primordial phase of expansion.

I can imagine a similar present day Earth where Fred Hoyle is known for
discovering the steady state of the universe and no one has heard of
Albert Einstein, yet I doubt this world's actual existence. I expect the
physics of our own space-time world reflects a single natural
superstructure, as follows.

In recognizing that 100% of all possible worlds end at a common single
state we would then consider such a state as a sort of ultimate
attractor (Stuart Kauffman) within the Universe's overall or aggregate
state space (the set of all possible states).

Presently the common notion is that the set of all possible states is
infinite and we conclude naturally that this means it is without
boundaries. Yet we recognize the early universe as a supremely ordered
state, possibly infinitely dense, which itself is a boundary within
aggregate state space. We do presently figure in that there is a state
of highest order.

Some thus describe all states as a wedge, given shape by the single
state of highest order, yet there is an endless number of disordered
states as the wedge expands. Or the highest order state is a singular
central pattern and the sea of other possible states expands in any
direction away from that point. Such models lead us to envision the
reason behind the second law to be that time has a taste for disorder,
because there is always more disordered states than ordered states.

Yet if we consider how we would envision nature itself, the universe we
live in, if we actually did find ourselves in a world where all probable
paths of time where converging toward a state of ever increasing
entropy, toward zero, we would indubitably consider that convergence to
be a universal process. Your proposition I think is intuited and real.
Now that we have discovered an increasing expansion rate, it is becoming
increasingly clear that an expanding universe (any expansion greater
than a decreasing rate) may have an ending just as it has a beginning,
and that ending will necessarily fall to an absolute zero energy state,
a physical condition the scientific community considered impossible only
months ago.

If we found ourselves directly facing such a future we would then be
more inclined to study the qualities of absolute zero similar to how we
are increasingly able to relate to infinite density (no boundary
proposal), recognizing that the consistency of our normal mathematical
(plane) system and the laws of physics, our way of describing reality,
breaks down at extreme states.

Absolute zero is a common point in nature, of zero energy, mass,
density, volume, curvature, and time. Yet spatially, the universe
expands ever nearer toward it. This omega point is the upper limit of
variation, at which point expansion loses its meaning and the Universe
becomes perfectly flat, empty of matter, even as space extends
infinitely in all directions.

Like infinite density or the highest state of order, such is also an
extreme of possibility, a singular isolated state in the Universe's
aggregate state space, which means that there are two extremes which are
in a real sense boundaries. The set of all possible states is infinite
yet bordered by ultimate extremes, thus giving nature an ultimate shape
and a describable foundation from which we are able to derive basic
axioms and a mathematics.

The concept of an omega point at the end of time is not new, but the
idea that there are boundaries to aggregate state space is perhaps a
fresh idea. If we recognize boundaries to the set of all possible states
it is immediately possible to then recognize the actual boundaries that
apply to a MWI of space-time, and then possible to know the actual
probabilities that regulate where an observer can exist.

In my experience I have not found that fresh ideas are often welcomed
but I have been subscribed for a few months now and its about time I
posted something. Still, thanks for setting the tone enough to drag me
in. If I was able to seduce anybody into the absurd notion that infinity
has boundaries there's more at my website.

Devin Harris
http://everythingforever.com
Received on Fri Jun 04 1999 - 11:32:25 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST