Infinite worlds, Quantum indeterminacy, and The endlessly generative
in [Logic]
|
From: John Jones on 1 Mar 2010 19:54 Modern science regards the universe as fixed, even if the number of things that are fixed is "infinite" or "indeterminate". For example, science's notion of infinite possible worlds and quantum indeterminacy are all variations on a granular, fixed universe filled with fixed objects. By "fixed" I mean re-identifiable. Isn't there another way we can define or describe an endlessly generative universe rather than through "infinite" or "indeterminate" objects? Such an "endlessly generative" would immediately disqualify the idea of time-travel, as all moments would be unique. There could, in principle, be no returns or revisits. There could also be no empirically or non-empirically re-identifiable points in space. This latter idea is already partly endorsed by the quantum lads who, unlike the Newtonians, do not endorse the idea of the empirical re-identification of objects. The quantists are, however, committed to the idea of non-empirically re-identifiable objects in their notion of "indeterminacy".
From: Mark Earnest on 1 Mar 2010 20:02 "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:hmhnk3$3do$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Modern science regards the universe as fixed, even if the number of things > that are fixed is "infinite" or "indeterminate". For example, science's > notion of infinite possible worlds and quantum indeterminacy are all > variations on a granular, fixed universe filled with fixed objects. By > "fixed" I mean re-identifiable. > > Isn't there another way we can define or describe an endlessly generative > universe rather than through "infinite" or "indeterminate" objects? > > Such an "endlessly generative" would immediately disqualify the idea of > time-travel, as all moments would be unique. There could, in principle, be > no returns or revisits. There could also be no empirically or > non-empirically re-identifiable points in space. This latter idea is > already partly endorsed by the quantum lads who, unlike the Newtonians, do > not endorse the idea of the empirical re-identification of objects. The > quantists are, however, committed to the idea of non-empirically > re-identifiable objects in their notion of "indeterminacy". **An endlessly generative universe would finally run out and expend itself, as there are only so many souls.
From: Smiler on 1 Mar 2010 21:53 Mark Earnest wrote: > "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:hmhnk3$3do$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Modern science regards the universe as fixed, even if the number of >> things that are fixed is "infinite" or "indeterminate". For example, >> science's notion of infinite possible worlds and quantum >> indeterminacy are all variations on a granular, fixed universe >> filled with fixed objects. By "fixed" I mean re-identifiable. >> >> Isn't there another way we can define or describe an endlessly >> generative universe rather than through "infinite" or >> "indeterminate" objects? Such an "endlessly generative" would immediately >> disqualify the idea >> of time-travel, as all moments would be unique. There could, in >> principle, be no returns or revisits. There could also be no >> empirically or non-empirically re-identifiable points in space. This >> latter idea is already partly endorsed by the quantum lads who, >> unlike the Newtonians, do not endorse the idea of the empirical >> re-identification of objects. The quantists are, however, committed >> to the idea of non-empirically re-identifiable objects in their >> notion of "indeterminacy". > > **An endlessly generative universe would finally run out and expend > itself, as there are only so many souls. Yep. There are zero 'souls'. -- Smiler The godless one a.a.# 2279 All gods are bespoke. They're all made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
From: Mark Earnest on 1 Mar 2010 21:55 "Smiler" <Smiler(a)joe.king.com> wrote in message news:X4%in.66759$1Y2.6370(a)newsfe03.ams2... > Mark Earnest wrote: >> "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:hmhnk3$3do$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> Modern science regards the universe as fixed, even if the number of >>> things that are fixed is "infinite" or "indeterminate". For example, >>> science's notion of infinite possible worlds and quantum >>> indeterminacy are all variations on a granular, fixed universe >>> filled with fixed objects. By "fixed" I mean re-identifiable. >>> >>> Isn't there another way we can define or describe an endlessly >>> generative universe rather than through "infinite" or >>> "indeterminate" objects? Such an "endlessly generative" would >>> immediately disqualify the idea >>> of time-travel, as all moments would be unique. There could, in >>> principle, be no returns or revisits. There could also be no >>> empirically or non-empirically re-identifiable points in space. This >>> latter idea is already partly endorsed by the quantum lads who, >>> unlike the Newtonians, do not endorse the idea of the empirical >>> re-identification of objects. The quantists are, however, committed >>> to the idea of non-empirically re-identifiable objects in their >>> notion of "indeterminacy". >> >> **An endlessly generative universe would finally run out and expend >> itself, as there are only so many souls. > > Yep. There are zero 'souls'. In the book of the religion of atheism.
From: Errol on 2 Mar 2010 02:30
On Mar 2, 2:54 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Modern science regards the universe as fixed, even if the number of > things that are fixed is "infinite" or "indeterminate". For example, > science's notion of infinite possible worlds and quantum indeterminacy > are all variations on a granular, fixed universe filled with fixed > objects. By "fixed" I mean re-identifiable. > > Isn't there another way we can define or describe an endlessly > generative universe rather than through "infinite" or "indeterminate" > objects? > It could be argued that the universe we are part of, functionally ends at the Planck scale. Below that, it is conjectured and inferred from some experiments regarding non-local quantum superpositions , that time and causality do not exist. This leads to the suggestion (mine) that the universe we know is possibly generated from that sub-planckian realm. Unfortunately, the largest colliders today are nowhere near powerful enough to explore it > Such an "endlessly generative" would immediately disqualify the idea of > time-travel, as all moments would be unique. There could, in principle, > be no returns or revisits. There could also be no empirically or > non-empirically re-identifiable points in space. This latter idea is > already partly endorsed by the quantum lads who, unlike the Newtonians, > do not endorse the idea of the empirical re-identification of objects. > The quantists are, however, committed to the idea of non-empirically > re-identifiable objects in their notion of "indeterminacy". The opposite would be true were it possible to establish a protocol for exchanging energy with the sub-planckian realm. As time does not exist in it, it would be the ultimate time-wormhole. |