Re: a possible paradox

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:32:07 -0500

Dear Mirai and Federico and Friends,

    Could we cover the "White Rabbit" and "Harry Potter" universes by
considering that for a pair of systems to interact their individual
histories must not contradict each other? This, I think, would also cover
interactions between the MWI "branches".

Kindest regards,

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mirai Shounen" <mirai_shounen.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Federico Marulli" <marulli.domain.name.hidden>;
<everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: a possible paradox


> Actually I wasn't thinking about "physically impossible things happening
> very rarely" (QM) but only about regular physics vs probability of things
> happening.
>
> If you consider quantum mechanics you are right in an infinite universe
> there could be areas in which physics just happens to work very
differently,
> people there would formulate very different physical laws (if people could
> evolve, or spontaneously appear).
>
> So if the universe is infinite, it doesn't make much sense to talk about
> laws of physics. Still there need to be some fundamental rules that never
> change, for example the fact that something exists. You can't have areas
of
> the universe in which the universe itself does note exist (I think).
>
> Frankly I don't believe the universe is infinite, occam's razor says it's
> just very big.
> Last month there was a report about someone finding a pattern in galaxies
> that would suggest the universe is much smaller than we thought but light
> "wraps around" making it appear infinite... the theory was discarded very
> soon after more experiments were carried out, but it reminded me of that
> star trek episode.. "state the nature of the universe" - "the universe is
a
> hollow sphere 12 km in diameter" ... or something.
>
> Infinity is just our perception of things very big... something that
> originates from nothingness and expands has very little chances of
becoming
> infinite in finite time.
>
>
> mirai++
>
> > > I think two things are being confused. First, the laws of physics,
> second,
> > > the laws of probability. A gas particle follow physical rules
(movement,
> > > bumping, thermal vibrations) and lots of gas particles together follow
> > > probability rules (low probability of people suffocating in rooms).
> >
> > The problem is that all the laws of physics have been found observing
the
> > world around us in an experimental way. But all the outcomes of an
> > experiment are probabilistc and we know the low of physics only with a
> > certain error. So the paradox in the laws of probability is a paradox in
> > laws of physics too. The whole physics is probabilistic.
> >
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 30 2003 - 20:34:28 PST