Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

20196Re: [FI] Universes (was: For Ch2 - Shadow Particles)

Expand Messages
  • Alan Forrester
    Mar 16
      On 15 Mar 2017, at 22:13, 'anonymous FI' anonymousfallibleideas@... [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

      > On 14 Mar 2017, at 15:21, Alan Forrester
      > alanmichaelforrester@... [fallible-ideas] wrote:
      >
      >> On 14 Mar 2017, at 14:24, 'anonymous FI'
      >> anonymousfallibleideas@... [fallible-ideas]
      >> <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      >>
      >>> I’m still reading Ch2. I am slow, but it doesn’t prompt as many
      >>> comments as Ch1.
      >>>
      >>> Sometimes it takes several readings to think I’ve got it.
      >>>
      >>> For example, I found the following hard to understand [referring to
      >>> shadow particles]:
      >>>
      >>>> In other words, they do not form a single, homogeneous parallel
      >>>> universe vastly larger than the tangible one, but rather a huge
      >>>> number
      >>>> of parallel universes, each similar in composition to the tangible
      >>>> one, and each obeying the same laws of physics, but differing in
      >>>> that
      >>>> the particles are in different positions in each universe.
      >
      >
      >>> (3) The shadow particles of everything else (stuff not involved in
      >>> the
      >>> experiment) may be in same or different places in each universe in
      >>> which
      >>> the experiment takes place. We don’t care about them because they
      >>> have
      >>> nothing to do with the experiment.
      >>
      >> A universe is a kind of story told after the fact about what happened.
      >> It’s best not to get too hung up on whether things are in the same
      >> universe or not.
      >
      > Like light, I’m having trouble thinking about a universe. Even without
      > getting hung up on whether things are in the same universe or not, I
      > have other problems.
      >
      > One problem I’m having is with combinatorial explosion. FoR uses an
      > example with a frog:
      >> We have seen that the story of the frog that stares at the distant
      >> torch for days at a time, waiting for the flicker that comes on
      >> average once a day, is not the whole story, because there must also be
      >> shadow frogs, in shadow universes that co-exist with the tangible one,
      >> also waiting for photons. Suppose that our frog is trained to jump
      >> when it sees a flicker. At the beginning of the experiment, the
      >> tangible frog will have a large set of shadow counterparts, all
      >> initially alike. But shortly afterwards they will no longer all be
      >> alike. Any particular one of them is unlikely to see a photon
      >> immediately. But what is a rare event in any one universe is a common
      >> event in the multiverse as a whole. At any instant, somewhere in the
      >> multiverse, there are a few universes in which one of the photons is
      >> currently striking the retina of the frog in that universe. And that
      >> frog jumps.
      >
      > Relying on a concept I saw in BoI, I’m assuming the particles in the
      > frog are initially fungible. But they become differentiated when the
      > frog jumps. After a day there’s…millions? Billions? Of
      > differentiated frogs. But mustn’t each and every one of those
      > differentiated frogs also contain enough fungible stuff to further
      > differentiate? Each of the frogs differentiated by seeing a photon and
      > jumping at a different time, in turn may see a second photon right away,
      > or later…so some jump a second time right away and some don’t until
      > a little later and so on…further differentiating into still more
      > frogs. And then some of those will see a third, and a fourth, etc. all
      > at different times.
      >
      > Seems like, even only considering frogs, the differentiation of
      > previously differentiated stuff combines to make the total number of
      > frogs infinite, or at least really super large (and what would the limit
      > be?).
      >
      > Where does the stuff to make all these frogs come from? Was it there all
      > along or is more spontaneously created as soon as an event that causes
      > differentiation happens?

      The stuff doesn’t come from anywhere. There is a continuous infinity of fungible frogs, like the real number line. That continuous infinity of fungible frogs differentiates over time. The number of instances of frogs doesn’t increase or decrease as a result of the differentiation. You’re just taking the set that already exists and dividing it up. The same amount of stuff exists before and after a division.

      Alan
    • Show all 56 messages in this topic