Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 09:55, Alan Grayson a
écrit :
> If the age of the universe is finite, which is generally believed, then no
> matter how fast it expands, it can never become spatially infinite, So,*
> IF* it is spatially infinite, this must have been its initial condition
> at or around he
*Apparently Elon Musk and his assistant Donald Trump believe that the best
way to make America great again is to cut scientific research and
development by 2/3. The National Science Foundation currently gets $9.1
billion a year, Biden wanted to increase it to 10.2 billion, Musk and Trump
want to cu
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:34 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
*> as soon as you involve separate non-interacting worlds, and rely on
> decoherence to give (approximate) orthogonality, then you have assumed that
> small amplitudes correspond to low probability -- which is just the Born
> rule*
*If, due t
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 3:23 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 9:36:31 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 9:59 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 7:26:18 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 8:45 PM Al
If the age of the universe is finite, which is generally believed, then no
matter how fast it expands, it can never become spatially infinite, So,* IF*
it is spatially infinite, this must have been its initial condition at or
around he time of the Big Bang (BB). But this contradicts the assumpti
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/12/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 11:49:23 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, your reasoning is flawed because it assumes a contradiction where none
exists. An infinite uni
AG, you’re trying to rewrite your position while accusing me of having an
agenda. You initially claimed an infinite universe contradicts high
temperature at the Big Bang. That’s not "just not generally accepted"—it’s
wrong. An infinite universe can still be extremely hot and dense everywhere.
Now
Bruce,
You argue that MWI predicts a uniform distribution of outcomes because all
sequences exist and each branch contains exactly one observer. Since
experiments follow the Born rule instead, you claim MWI is falsified. But
this assumes that measure has no effect—something you have not proven.
T
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 5:57 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> You argue that MWI predicts a uniform distribution of outcomes because all
> sequences exist and each branch contains exactly one observer. Since
> experiments follow the Born rule instead, you claim MWI is falsified. But
> this
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 11:50:09 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, you’re trying to rewrite your position while accusing me of having an
agenda. You initially claimed an infinite universe contradicts high
temperature at the Big Bang. That’s not "just not generally accepted"—it’s
What I mean is not some simple minded answer such as solving for this or
that tensor in the field equation, but something like this; suppose we
consider a star of mass M, with all mass contained in its center for
simplicity. How would we calculate the spacetime curvature in a region
around this
Bruce,
Listing 2^N sequences does not prove that measure is irrelevant. Yes, all
sequences exist, but that does not mean they all contribute equally to an
observer’s experience. Your argument assumes that each sequence corresponds
to exactly one branch with exactly one observer, but nothing in uni
Basic question; when a solution is sought, what exactly can we solve for?
TY, AG
--
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-list+unsubscr...@
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 11:59 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 8:26:58 AM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 3:23 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 9:36:31 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 9:59 P
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 7:05:01 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:
*Apparently Elon Musk and his assistant Donald Trump believe that the best
way to make America great again is to cut scientific research and
development by 2/3. The National Science Foundation currently gets $9.1
billion a
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 1:48:06 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 1:12:13 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, if you’re postulating a closed universe, that’s entirely different from
claiming an infinite universe contradicts high temperature at the Big B
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 1:59:00 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 11:59 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 8:26:58 AM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 3:23 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 9:36:31
AG, you can make multiple claims, but when you start with "an infinite
universe contradicts high temperature at the Big Bang" and then pivot to "a
finite universe is possible," it is shifting the argument. If your real
point was just that a finite universe is possible, we could have skipped
all the
Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 22:03, Alan Grayson a
écrit :
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 1:48:06 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 1:12:13 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> AG, if you’re postulating a closed universe, that’s entirely different
> from claim
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 11:49:23 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, your reasoning is flawed because it assumes a contradiction where none
exists. An infinite universe doesn’t have to "become" infinite—it can be
infinite at all times, just evolving in density and scale factor. High
AG, you're shifting from claiming a contradiction to merely suggesting a
possibility, which is a step forward, but your reasoning is still flawed.
The Cosmological Principle states that the universe is homogeneous and
isotropic on large scales, but that does not mean "if the observable
universe is
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 12:36:38 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/12/2025 12:55 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
If the age of the universe is finite, which is generally believed, then no
matter how fast it expands, it can never become spatially infinite, So,* IF*
it is spatially infinit
Fortunately appropriation and spending is a power of Congress.
Unfortunately a majority of Congress Critturs consists of spinelss slugs.
Brent
On 2/12/2025 6:04 AM, John Clark wrote:
*Apparently Elon Musk and his assistant Donald Trump believe that the
best way to make America great again is
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 12:49:19 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, you're shifting from claiming a contradiction to merely suggesting a
possibility, which is a step forward, but your reasoning is still flawed.
The Cosmological Principle states that the universe is homogeneous and
AG, if you’re postulating a closed universe, that’s entirely different from
claiming an infinite universe contradicts high temperature at the Big Bang.
It just means you're favoring a specific topology.
The problem is that your argument keeps shifting. Initially, you argued
that an infinite univer
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 10:10:40 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 17:55, Alan Grayson a écrit :
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:09:58 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 09:55, Alan Grayson a écrit :
If the age of the universe i
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 12:08:13 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, you're backpedaling again. You originally claimed that an infinite
universe contradicts high temperature at the Big Bang, now you're just
saying it's "possible" the universe was finite. Fine, but that’s not what’s
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 1:12:13 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, if you’re postulating a closed universe, that’s entirely different from
claiming an infinite universe contradicts high temperature at the Big Bang.
It just means you're favoring a specific topology.
The problem is
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 2:25 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
*>> We know from experiment the Born Rule works, everybody agrees about
>> that, but Copenhagen, Pilot Wave and Objective Collapse don't even try to
>> explain WHY it works, they just take it as a starting assumption; but Many
>> Worlds doesn't
On 2/12/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 11:49:23 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux
wrote:
AG, your reasoning is flawed because it assumes a contradiction
where none exists. An infinite universe doesn’t have to "become"
infinite—it can be infinite at
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 9:19 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> You insist that no matter what is added to MWI, it cannot recover the Born
> rule. But that’s not an argument, it’s a claim.
>
It is the conclusion to an argument.
The fact that multiple approaches attempt to derive it suggests
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 4:13 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 1:59:00 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 11:59 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 8:26:58 AM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 3:2
On 2/12/2025 1:58 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
*>> You can't explain why only one thing happens*
/> I don't need to explain it to people you understand what
"probability" means./
*Schrodinger's Equation is 100% deterministic, s
On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 9:36:31 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 9:59 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 7:26:18 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 8:45 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 5:46:02 PM UTC
Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 00:01, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
>
>
> On 2/11/2025 4:27 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Bruce,
>
> I'll still give it a try to get a discussion (dumb me).
>
> If your response boils down to "this is nonsense" and "you’re not clever
> enough," then you’re not engaging with th
On 2/12/2025 5:09 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:34 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
/> as soon as you involve separate non-interacting worlds, and
rely on decoherence to give (approximate) orthogonality, then you
have assumed that small amplitudes correspond to low probab
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:17:30 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, you can make multiple claims, but when you start with "an infinite
universe contradicts high temperature at the Big Bang" and then pivot to "a
finite universe is possible," it is shifting the argument. If your real
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/12/2025 11:04 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 11:49:23 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, your reasoning is flawed because it assumes a contradiction where none
exists. An infinite uni
Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 22:30, Alan Grayson a
écrit :
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:17:30 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> AG, you can make multiple claims, but when you start with "an infinite
> universe contradicts high temperature at the Big Bang" and then pivot to "a
> finite u
On 2/12/2025 12:19 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 2:25 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:
*>> We know from experiment the Born Rule works, everybody
agrees about that, but Copenhagen, Pilot Wave and Objective
Collapse don't even try to explain WHY it works, they ju
Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free
without a subscription.
‘Ultrahigh Energy’ Neutrino Found With a Telescope Under the Sea
It’s the most energetic particle of its kind ever discovered, and
scientists have no idea where it came from.
https://www.nytimes.c
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:09:58 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 09:55, Alan Grayson a écrit :
If the age of the universe is finite, which is generally believed, then no
matter how fast it expands, it can never become spatially infinite, So,* IF*
it is spat
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 8:26:58 AM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 3:23 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 9:36:31 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 9:59 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2025 at 7:26:18 PM
On 2/12/2025 12:55 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
If the age of the universe is finite, which is generally believed,
then no matter how fast it expands, it can never become spatially
infinite, So,*IF* it is spatially infinite, this must have been its
initial condition at or around he time of the Big
Bruce,
You insist that no matter what is added to MWI, it cannot recover the Born
rule. But that’s not an argument, it’s a claim. The fact that multiple
approaches attempt to derive it suggests the issue is far from settled.
Dismissing them without engaging with their reasoning does not refute the
Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 17:55, Alan Grayson a
écrit :
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:09:58 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 09:55, Alan Grayson a écrit :
>
> If the age of the universe is finite, which is generally believed, then no
> matter how fast it e
AG, your reasoning is flawed because it assumes a contradiction where none
exists. An infinite universe doesn’t have to "become" infinite—it can be
infinite at all times, just evolving in density and scale factor. High
temperature and density at the Big Bang don’t require finiteness; they
describe
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 7:05:01 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:
*Apparently Elon Musk and his assistant Donald Trump believe that the best
way to make America great again is to cut scientific research and
development by 2/3. The National Science Foundation currently gets $9.1
billion a
AG, you're backpedaling again. You originally claimed that an infinite
universe contradicts high temperature at the Big Bang, now you're just
saying it's "possible" the universe was finite. Fine, but that’s not what’s
debated—the issue is whether an infinite universe must be contradictory to
high d
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
*>> You can't explain why only one thing happens*
>
>
> *> I don't need to explain it to people you understand what "probability"
> means.*
*Schrodinger's Equation is 100% deterministic, so why is it necessary to
resort to probability at all?
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 9:51 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> You argue that quantum mechanics follows the Born rule, but MWI does not.
> However, this assumes that MWI should reproduce the Born rule directly from
> the Schrödinger equation without additional structure. The issue is not
> w
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:43:01 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le mer. 12 févr. 2025, 22:30, Alan Grayson a écrit :
On Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:17:30 PM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, you can make multiple claims, but when you start with "an infinite
universe contr
52 matches
Mail list logo
