Re: Russell's book

From: Johnathan Corgan <>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:22:42 -0700

Brent Meeker wrote:

>> These questions may reduce to something like, "Is there a lower limit to
>> the amplitude of the SWE?"
>> If measure is infinitely divisible, then is there any natural scale to
>> its absolute value?
> I think it is not and there is a lower limit below which cross terms in the density
> matrix must be strictly (not just FAPP) zero. The Planck scale provides a lower
> bound on fundamental physical values. So it makes sense to me that treating
> probability measures as a continuum is no more than a convenient approximation. But
> I have no idea how to make that precise and testable.

Having measure ultimately having a fixed lower limit would I think be
fatal to QTI. But, consider the following:

At every successive moment our measure is decreasing, possibly by a very
large fraction, depending on how you count it. Every moment we branch
into only one of a huge number of possibilities. A "moment" here is on
the order a Planck time unit.

So does this mean we run the risk of suddenly ceasing to exist, if our
measure decreases past a lower limit simple due to the evolution of the SWE?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Sep 12 2006 - 17:23:44 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST