Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 6736017" data-attributes="member: 13107">Whoa there Nelly.&nbsp; I didn't think that the proposed scales (120b ly?) are anywhere near big enough to provide room for &quot;almost every conceivable configuration of matter&quot;.&nbsp; I don't even think that 10^120 comes close to being big enough for that, even.&nbsp; How many plank units are there in a 20b ly radius?&nbsp; What is 2^that number?I do think there start to be philosophic problems, of whether it is proper to consider stuff outside of our range of interaction to be &quot;in our universe&quot;.&nbsp; That stuff would be implied because we have an easier time of mentally picturing the state of the universe as a whole, which is a psychological need more-so than a testable physical one.As a slight tangent, something that doesn't ever seem to arise in the many-universes interpretation is whether to consider different regions which are identical as actually the same (issue number 1), and how the whole ensemble is connected (it seems multiply connected) (issue number 2), and how vastly big such an ensemble would be (as every point would be simultaneously branching to every possible outcome) (issue number 3).&nbsp; Just beginning to imagine the topology of the ensemble is difficult, let alone getting a clear description of the whole.Thx!TomB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 6736017, member: 13107"] Whoa there Nelly. I didn't think that the proposed scales (120b ly?) are anywhere near big enough to provide room for "almost every conceivable configuration of matter". I don't even think that 10^120 comes close to being big enough for that, even. How many plank units are there in a 20b ly radius? What is 2^that number? I do think there start to be philosophic problems, of whether it is proper to consider stuff outside of our range of interaction to be "in our universe". That stuff would be implied because we have an easier time of mentally picturing the state of the universe as a whole, which is a psychological need more-so than a testable physical one. As a slight tangent, something that doesn't ever seem to arise in the many-universes interpretation is whether to consider different regions which are identical as actually the same (issue number 1), and how the whole ensemble is connected (it seems multiply connected) (issue number 2), and how vastly big such an ensemble would be (as every point would be simultaneously branching to every possible outcome) (issue number 3). Just beginning to imagine the topology of the ensemble is difficult, let alone getting a clear description of the whole. Thx! TomB [/QUOTE]

Verification