Re: Do things constantly get bigger?

From: rmiller <rmiller.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 14:31:39 -0500

At 01:28 PM 6/3/2005, Norman Samish wrote:
>Hal,
> Your phrase ". . . constantly get bigger" reminds me of Mark
>McCutcheon's "The Final Theory" where he revives a notion that gravity is
>caused by the expansion of atoms.
>Norman

That's the excuse I use.
RM



>----- Original Message -----
>From: ""Hal Finney"" <hal.domain.name.hidden>
>To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
>Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 8:59 AM
>Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
>
>
>Saibal Mitra writes:
> > This is actualy another argument against QTI. There are only a finite
> > number
> > of different versions of observers. Suppose a 'subjective' time evolution
> > on
> > the set of all possible observers exists that is always well defined.
> > Suppose we start with observer O1, and under time evolution it evolves to
> > O2, which then evolves to O3 etc. Eventually an On will be mapped back to
> > O1
> > (if this never happened that would contradict the fact that there are only
> > a
> > finite number of O's). But mapping back to the initial state doesn't
> > conserve memory. You can thus only subjectively experience yourself
> > evolving
> > for a finite amount of time.
>
>Unless... you constantly get bigger! Then you could escape the
>limitations of the Bekenstein bound.
>
>Hal Finney
Received on Fri Jun 03 2005 - 15:55:11 PDT