- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:12:07 +1000

In reply to posts by Hal Finney and Bruno Marchal--

Hal:

I found the paper you referred to, and it certainly has some very

interesting ideas, for example the idea that the arrow of time is actually

an anthropic artefact. I admit that I have much reading to do if I am to

understand the paper properly, but I am not sure what I was proposing - that

all possible worlds will at some stage exist - is the same thing as the

Poincare recurrences discussed in this paper. It possible that only a subset

of possible events (everything that has occurred so far, and then some) will

cycle endlessly, and if so, as Nietzche commented, that'll suck (or words to

that effect). I probably gave the wrong example when I proposed as my

unlikely event the formation of an exact copy of our solar system and its

inhabitants in far future interstellar space; much more interesting would be

a rather different copy, where you would be resurrected with intact

personality and memories of your past life, with enhanced intelligence and

physical abilities, and a whole new civilization with scientific wonders,

intelligent aliens, and things so strange that no-one today has even

imagined them, all to explore. Of course, you will also experience burning

in hellfire as the flipside to this happy state, but who was it that said it

was better to burn than to disappear?

Bruno:

I agree that my four assumptions are dubious, but I chose them, for the sake

of argument, as being (a) most inimical towards Many Worlds theories, (b)

closest to what most people would think of as common sense, and (c) least

controversial/ most conservative in the scientific community. I do think

they are internally consistent, even if they are completely wrong. I do not

understand your comment that by saying the universe is unique, finite,

expanding and cooling forever, it is contradictory to allow that my example

of an unlikely event will occur as time approaches infinity. The increase in

entropy and cooling which go with the model I suggested are average trends

over time. It is possible within this long term decline to have pockets of

order/ decreasing entropy, both in classical statistical mechanics and

quantum mechanics. It is a mathematical fact, independent of the actual

physics, that given enough time (and eternity is certainly enough time), any

event that is possible, however close to zero its probability per unit time,

will occur with probability arbitrarily close to 1. What rather surprised

me, however, is the fact that the last statement is only true in general if

the probability per unit time stays constant or increases with increasing

time; if it decreases, limiting towards zero as time approaches infinity,

then it is possible that this event, which still always has non-zero

probability per unit time, may never actually occur. For example, if

Pr(P)=1/(t^2), as t goes from 2 to infinity, the cumulative probability that

P will occur at some point is 1/2.

Stathis Papaioannou

_________________________________________________________________

Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Go to

http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp?banner=emailtag&referrer=hotmail

Received on Wed Jul 21 2004 - 09:15:15 PDT

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:12:07 +1000

In reply to posts by Hal Finney and Bruno Marchal--

Hal:

I found the paper you referred to, and it certainly has some very

interesting ideas, for example the idea that the arrow of time is actually

an anthropic artefact. I admit that I have much reading to do if I am to

understand the paper properly, but I am not sure what I was proposing - that

all possible worlds will at some stage exist - is the same thing as the

Poincare recurrences discussed in this paper. It possible that only a subset

of possible events (everything that has occurred so far, and then some) will

cycle endlessly, and if so, as Nietzche commented, that'll suck (or words to

that effect). I probably gave the wrong example when I proposed as my

unlikely event the formation of an exact copy of our solar system and its

inhabitants in far future interstellar space; much more interesting would be

a rather different copy, where you would be resurrected with intact

personality and memories of your past life, with enhanced intelligence and

physical abilities, and a whole new civilization with scientific wonders,

intelligent aliens, and things so strange that no-one today has even

imagined them, all to explore. Of course, you will also experience burning

in hellfire as the flipside to this happy state, but who was it that said it

was better to burn than to disappear?

Bruno:

I agree that my four assumptions are dubious, but I chose them, for the sake

of argument, as being (a) most inimical towards Many Worlds theories, (b)

closest to what most people would think of as common sense, and (c) least

controversial/ most conservative in the scientific community. I do think

they are internally consistent, even if they are completely wrong. I do not

understand your comment that by saying the universe is unique, finite,

expanding and cooling forever, it is contradictory to allow that my example

of an unlikely event will occur as time approaches infinity. The increase in

entropy and cooling which go with the model I suggested are average trends

over time. It is possible within this long term decline to have pockets of

order/ decreasing entropy, both in classical statistical mechanics and

quantum mechanics. It is a mathematical fact, independent of the actual

physics, that given enough time (and eternity is certainly enough time), any

event that is possible, however close to zero its probability per unit time,

will occur with probability arbitrarily close to 1. What rather surprised

me, however, is the fact that the last statement is only true in general if

the probability per unit time stays constant or increases with increasing

time; if it decreases, limiting towards zero as time approaches infinity,

then it is possible that this event, which still always has non-zero

probability per unit time, may never actually occur. For example, if

Pr(P)=1/(t^2), as t goes from 2 to infinity, the cumulative probability that

P will occur at some point is 1/2.

Stathis Papaioannou

_________________________________________________________________

Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Go to

http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp?banner=emailtag&referrer=hotmail

Received on Wed Jul 21 2004 - 09:15:15 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*