Infinite or just very very large?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 1:45 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the basis for claiming that everything that's possible to happen, must happen, is a question you've never answered

You've asked that question many times and I've answered it many times, and my answer is always the same;  the claim is derived from the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, Schrodinger's Equation means what it says.  So far nobody has ever performed an experiment that disproves that assumption, if anybody ever does then Many Worlds is dead wrong.

>Whichever turn you take, there exists an uncountable set of paths, corresponding to the set of possible curves

Maybe. Maybe not. There is no doubt that mathematically the set of all possible curves is uncountably infinite, but we're talking about physics not mathematics, so the answer is not clear at all. There might be an uncountably infinite number of paths, there might be a countably infinite number of paths, there might only be an astronomical number to an astronomical power FINITE  number of paths; it all depends on if time and/or space is continuous or discrete. Schrodinger's Equation is an agnostic on that question, and so is Many Worlds.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

1fz

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 31, 2025 at 6:10:54 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 1:45 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the basis for claiming that everything that's possible to happen, must happen, is a question you've never answered

You've asked that question many times and I've answered it many times, and my answer is always the same;  the claim is derived from the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, Schrodinger's Equation means what it says.  So far nobody has ever performed an experiment that disproves that assumption, if anybody ever does then Many Worlds is dead wrong.

That's a non-answer, just an excuse for an answer. S's equation is just that; an equation. What about the equation allows your equation to have the meaning you ascribe to it? AG 

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 9:39 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> the basis for claiming that everything that's possible to happen, must happen, is a question you've never answered

>> You've asked that question many times and I've answered it many times, and my answer is always the same;  the claim is derived from the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, Schrodinger's Equation means what it says.  So far nobody has ever performed an experiment that disproves that assumption, if anybody ever does then Many Worlds is dead wrong.

> That's a non-answer, just an excuse for an answer. S's equation is just that; an equation. What about the equation allows your equation to have the meaning you ascribe to it? AG 

Schrodinger's equation uses complex numbers to deterministically derive a quantum wave. That quantum wave must be a real thing because, thanks to experiment, we know for a fact that the square of the absolute value of it corresponds with something real, that is to say something that has a possibility of being observed. For example, Schrodinger's equation says that a system consisting of a neutron decaying into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino has a wave function that is NOT zero and therefore can be observed, but a wave function that has an electron turning into a proton has a wave function that is zero and therefore can NOT be observed by anyone anywhere. 

Please note that if Schrodinger's equation says that something can be observed, that does not necessarily mean that YOU can observe it, nor does it mean you know somebody who could observe it, and it doesn't even mean that it's possible for you to know somebody who could observe it. It only says that the event can in theory be observable by somebody.

By the way, if you ever want to end this conversation all you need to do is talk about cults or Trump physics. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

TPS

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 31, 2025 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 9:39 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> the basis for claiming that everything that's possible to happen, must happen, is a question you've never answered

>> You've asked that question many times and I've answered it many times, and my answer is always the same;  the claim is derived from the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, Schrodinger's Equation means what it says.  So far nobody has ever performed an experiment that disproves that assumption, if anybody ever does then Many Worlds is dead wrong.

> That's a non-answer, just an excuse for an answer. S's equation is just that; an equation. What about the equation allows your equation to have the meaning you ascribe to it? AG 

Schrodinger's equation uses complex numbers to deterministically derive a quantum wave. That quantum wave must be a real thing because, thanks to experiment, we know for a fact that the square of the absolute value of it corresponds with something real, that is to say something that has a possibility of being observed. For example, Schrodinger's equation says that a system consisting of a neutron decaying into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino has a wave function that is NOT zero and therefore can be observed, but a wave function that has an electron turning into a proton has a wave function that is zero and therefore can NOT be observed by anyone anywhere. 

Please note that if Schrodinger's equation says that something can be observed, that does not necessarily mean that YOU can observe it, nor does it mean you know somebody who could observe it, and it doesn't even mean that it's possible for you to know somebody who could observe it. It only says that the event can in theory be observable by somebody.

This is not what S's equation says. For example, in a slit experiment, on a single trial it just tells us the probability of every possible outcome, not that every possible outcome MUST happen. You've added that to what the equation says, but are not aware of having done so, or won't admit it. AG

By the way, if you ever want to end this conversation all you need to do is talk about cults or Trump physics. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

 

>Whichever turn you take, there exists an uncountable set of paths, corresponding to the set of possible curves

[Quentin Anciaux]

Le ven. 31 janv. 2025, 18:05, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Friday, January 31, 2025 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 9:39 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> the basis for claiming that everything that's possible to happen, must happen, is a question you've never answered

>> You've asked that question many times and I've answered it many times, and my answer is always the same;  the claim is derived from the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, Schrodinger's Equation means what it says.  So far nobody has ever performed an experiment that disproves that assumption, if anybody ever does then Many Worlds is dead wrong.

> That's a non-answer, just an excuse for an answer. S's equation is just that; an equation. What about the equation allows your equation to have the meaning you ascribe to it? AG 

Schrodinger's equation uses complex numbers to deterministically derive a quantum wave. That quantum wave must be a real thing because, thanks to experiment, we know for a fact that the square of the absolute value of it corresponds with something real, that is to say something that has a possibility of being observed. For example, Schrodinger's equation says that a system consisting of a neutron decaying into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino has a wave function that is NOT zero and therefore can be observed, but a wave function that has an electron turning into a proton has a wave function that is zero and therefore can NOT be observed by anyone anywhere. 

Please note that if Schrodinger's equation says that something can be observed, that does not necessarily mean that YOU can observe it, nor does it mean you know somebody who could observe it, and it doesn't even mean that it's possible for you to know somebody who could observe it. It only says that the event can in theory be observable by somebody.

This is not what S's equation says. For example, in a slit experiment, on a single trial it just tells us the probability of every possible outcome, not that every possible outcome MUST happen.

So if it wasn't so, repeating the experiment shouldn't give interference patterns. 

You've added that to what the equation says, but are not aware of having done so, or won't admit it. AG

By the way, if you ever want to end this conversation all you need to do is talk about cults or Trump physics. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

 

>Whichever turn you take, there exists an uncountable set of paths, corresponding to the set of possible curves

Maybe. Maybe not. There is no doubt that mathematically the set of all possible curves is uncountably infinite, but we're talking about physics not mathematics, so the answer is not clear at all. There might be an uncountably infinite number of paths, there might be a countably infinite number of paths, there might only be an astronomical number to an astronomical power FINITE  number of paths; it all depends on if time and/or space is continuous or discrete. Schrodinger's Equation is an agnostic on that question, and so is Many Worlds.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/122dbf1c-bff6-439c-8bf3-b71aeb41202cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, January 31, 2025 at 11:09:29 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Le ven. 31 janv. 2025, 18:05, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Friday, January 31, 2025 at 10:36:33 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 9:39 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> the basis for claiming that everything that's possible to happen, must happen, is a question you've never answered

>> You've asked that question many times and I've answered it many times, and my answer is always the same;  the claim is derived from the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, Schrodinger's Equation means what it says.  So far nobody has ever performed an experiment that disproves that assumption, if anybody ever does then Many Worlds is dead wrong.

> That's a non-answer, just an excuse for an answer. S's equation is just that; an equation. What about the equation allows your equation to have the meaning you ascribe to it? AG 

Schrodinger's equation uses complex numbers to deterministically derive a quantum wave. That quantum wave must be a real thing because, thanks to experiment, we know for a fact that the square of the absolute value of it corresponds with something real, that is to say something that has a possibility of being observed. For example, Schrodinger's equation says that a system consisting of a neutron decaying into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino has a wave function that is NOT zero and therefore can be observed, but a wave function that has an electron turning into a proton has a wave function that is zero and therefore can NOT be observed by anyone anywhere. 

Please note that if Schrodinger's equation says that something can be observed, that does not necessarily mean that YOU can observe it, nor does it mean you know somebody who could observe it, and it doesn't even mean that it's possible for you to know somebody who could observe it. It only says that the event can in theory be observable by somebody.

This is not what S's equation says. For example, in a slit experiment, on a single trial it just tells us the probability of every possible outcome, not that every possible outcome MUST happen.

So if it wasn't so, repeating the experiment shouldn't give interference patterns. 

At least for non-relativistic QM, S's equation presumably contains all information, including that for interference. So a single measurement doesn't negate those infinitely many possible outcomes, inclusive of interference. Clark's persistent and unshakeable error is to add a postulate to the equation which is nowhere in sight; namely, that every possible outcome MUST occur somewhere, which is where Many Worlds is postulated. AG 

[Alan Grayson]

If the universe is spatially infinite, it had to begin as spatially infinite, since a finite rate of expansion, not matter how rapid, cannot result in spatial infinity if our Bubble has a finite age. But I have a problem with such an initial condition since it seems to contradict, or minimally complicate the Big Bang by adding an additional singularity (to infinite density at T=0). What I can imagine is our Bubble emerging from a sub-universe (for want of a better name) which is, in fact, infinite in space and time. AG. 

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 11:12 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the universe is spatially infinite, it must have begun as spatially infinite

Yes.

> But I have a problem with such an initial condition since it seems to contradict the BB by adding an additional singularity (to infinite density at T=0). 

Infinity + infinity = an Infiniti of equal cardinality to the previous two. And an initial condition in which you don't have to specify a boundary, which would be the case if we're dealing with infinite space, is simpler than an initial condition in which you do have to specify a boundary, which would be the case if we're dealing with finite space. That's why it's far easier to calculate the gravitational field around a dense rod that is infinitely long than a rod that is only finitely long, and the same thing is true of calculating the electrical field around a charged rod, or a magnetic field around a current carrying wire. In all these cases infinite things are much easier to deal with than finite things.

As to the question why there is something rather than nothing, it's beginning to look like the answer MIGHT be because the most fundamental laws of physics dictate that nothingness, that is to say infinite unbounded homogeneity, is unstable.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

hub

 

On Friday, January 31, 2025 at 6:10:54 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 1, 2025 at 5:57:43 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 11:12 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the universe is spatially infinite, it must have begun as spatially infinite

Yes.

> But I have a problem with such an initial condition since it seems to contradict the BB by adding an additional singularity (to infinite density at T=0). 

Infinity + infinity = an Infiniti of equal cardinality to the previous two. And an initial condition in which you don't have to specify a boundary, which would be the case if we're dealing with infinite space, is simpler than an initial condition in which you do have to specify a boundary, which would be the case if we're dealing with finite space. That's why it's far easier to calculate the gravitational field around a dense rod that is infinitely long than a rod that is only finitely long, and the same thing is true of calculating the electrical field around a charged rod, or a magnetic field around a current carrying wire. In all these cases infinite things are much easier to deal with than finite things.

As to the question why there is something rather than nothing, it's beginning to look like the answer MIGHT be because the most fundamental laws of physics dictate that nothingness, that is to say infinite unbounded homogeneity, is unstable.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

hub

It could be a 4D surface which is approximately spherical, and spatially finite without a boundary (approximately spherical because the Cosmological Red Shift is not exactly uniform in all directions). AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 1, 2025 at 8:58:00 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, February 1, 2025 at 5:57:43 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 11:12 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the universe is spatially infinite, it must have begun as spatially infinite

Yes.

> But I have a problem with such an initial condition since it seems to contradict the BB by adding an additional singularity (to infinite density at T=0). 

Infinity + infinity = an Infiniti of equal cardinality to the previous two. And an initial condition in which you don't have to specify a boundary, which would be the case if we're dealing with infinite space, is simpler than an initial condition in which you do have to specify a boundary, which would be the case if we're dealing with finite space. That's why it's far easier to calculate the gravitational field around a dense rod that is infinitely long than a rod that is only finitely long, and the same thing is true of calculating the electrical field around a charged rod, or a magnetic field around a current carrying wire. In all these cases infinite things are much easier to deal with than finite things.

As to the question why there is something rather than nothing, it's beginning to look like the answer MIGHT be because the most fundamental laws of physics dictate that nothingness, that is to say infinite unbounded homogeneity, is unstable.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

hub

It could be a 4D surface which is approximately spherical, and spatially finite without a boundary (approximately spherical because the Cosmological Red Shift is not exactly uniform in all directions). AG

How could Nothingness, which presumably has no properties, be unstable? AG

[Brent Meeker]

That depends whether you think the potential to have properties is itself a property.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, February 1, 2025 at 9:35:08 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

That depends whether you think the potential to have properties is itself a property.

Brent

Such a potential, unlike say potential energy which is caused by the gravitational field, would have be UNCAUSED, if we're considering a true absolute Nothingness. AG 

[John Clark]

On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 9:24 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It could be a 4D surface which is approximately spherical, and spatially finite without a boundary (approximately spherical because the Cosmological Red Shift is not exactly uniform in all directions). AG

Our 3D space could be embedded in 4D space but that complication is not necessary to explain observations, it is not necessary to jump out of 3D space to tell that it is curved. Also, if 3D space is embedded on the surface of a 4D sphere then the size of that finite sphere needs to be specified, that makes the starting conditions even more complicated. 

> How could Nothingness, which presumably has no properties, be unstable? AG

First of all it's important how you define "nothingness". If your question is "how did some THING that totally lacks the capacity to become something  rather than nothing?"  then no theory can answer the question, and that includes the God theory,  because the very question contains a self-contradiction. However if you give a more reasonable definition to "nothingness", such as infinite unbounded homogeneity, then we might be able to find an answer, and the physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote an entire book trying to do just that,  it's called "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" and I highly recommend it. In it he shows that if something is as empty as it possible to be there could still be very rare occasions where bubbles of space-time are produced from nothing. Krauss also gave a talk about this to the Richard Dawkins foundation, the most relevant part comes about 30 minutes in:

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

nfu

 

O

[Brent Meeker]

On 2/1/2025 10:53 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, February 1, 2025 at 9:35:08 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

That depends whether you think the potential to have properties is itself a property.

Brent

Such a potential, unlike say potential energy which is caused by the gravitational field, would have be UNCAUSED, if we're considering a true absolute Nothingness. AG

And quantum mechanics famously has things happen simply because they potentially can, with no cause.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

I am aware of that, but doesn't S's equation use the Hamiltonian, an energy operator, so in this case we're not dealing with a true absolute Nothingness? AG

[Brent Meeker]

Energy is the variable conjugate to time, so the Hamiltonian is the operator that evolves solutions in time.  That's where the potentiality comes in.  For example Vic considered a boundary condition in which the size of universe was imaginary in which case the evolution is tunneling into a real value.  Lawrence Krauss speculates that the CC is negative pressure and so an infinitesimal fluctuation of space from Nothing would expand and do work on empty space as it expanded thus producing matter and radiation with a net zero Newtonian energy (i.e. counting only matter and gravity).  So Krauss argues that the laws of physics provide this potentiallity and the potential for something-from-nothing must be allowed since if you adopt the contrary you will conclude from mere semantics that the universe could not have begun.

Brent

[Liz R]

There's another basis for claiming that everything that's possible must happen - this would be the case if the universe is both quantised and infinite.

[Alan Grayson]

That's basically the argument of Max Tegmark, and it means infinite copies of everything. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, February 2, 2025 at 6:20:47 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

That's basically the argument of Max Tegmark, and it means infinite copies of everything. AG

I don't think the quantization of gravity is a necessary condition for Max's model of an infinite universe to be realized. Anyway that's a long long way off, if ever. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

On Saturday, 1 February 2025 at 02:10:54 UTC+13 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 1:45 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> the basis for claiming that everything that's possible to happen, must happen, is a question you've never answered

You've asked that question many times and I've answered it many times, and my answer is always the same;  the claim is derived from the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, Schrodinger's Equation means what it says.  

It doesn't say that everything happens.  It says that some things have non-zero probabilities of happening.  Having a probability of happening is consistent with not happening.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 1:14 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

 >> the one and only assumption that Many Worlds makes, Schrodinger's Equation means what it says.  

> It doesn't say that everything happens. 

I know. Schrodinger's Equation says that for some things at some places at some times the way function drops to zero, such as an electron turning into a proton; that simply does not happen, not at any time in any universe in the multiverse. But the probability is zero IF AND ONLY IF the wave function is exactly zero.  

 > It says that some things have non-zero probabilities of happening.  

True, and some things have a zero probability of happening.  

> Having a probability of happening is consistent with not happening.

It's consistent with not being observed by a particular experimenter. But to form any picture, including one formed by the two slit experiment, you need contrast. So a spot on the photographic plate that has NOT received an electron and remains dark conveys just as much information to the experimenter as another spot that HAS received an electron and is part of a bright interference band.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

6gb