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?
-Johnathan
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Sep 12 2006 - 17:23:44 PDT