Recent content by PeterDonis

How do you know? Why don't we let the OP decide what he's asking, and whether the posts in this thread are useful to him? We've each expressed our opinions, but it's up to him.

It is when you're talking about multiverse hypotheses. That's the whole point of them: that every possible universe that could happen, does happen. The question is, is that actually true?

Yes.

That's how Tegmark defines a Level II multiverse. It's true that he defines other levels as well. But the OP appears to be asking about that one. Asking whether the processes could have occurred that give rise to a Level II multiverse is the same as asking whether a Level II multiverse exists...

Sure, but the OP's not asking how to define a multiverse. He's asking whether inflationary theory actually says a multiverse exists. And, as has already been posted, there is no consensus on that. Of course Tegmark thinks it does: he's listed as one of the proponents in the Wikipedia article...

More precisely, on the standard understanding of the experiment, decoherence does not occur until the particle strikes the detector screen. So "division events" would happen when decoherence happens. Does Barandes define "division events" that way? Note that decoherence is a stronger condition...

And from that Wikipedia page (thanks to @renormalize for the quote): Proponents and skeptics Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Lee Smolin, Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander...

For reference, the Wikipedia page you mention is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

In general this is not the case. The Lorentz force is ##F = q \left( \vec{E} + \vec{v} \times \vec{B} \right)## (modulo some constant factors that depend on your choice of units). The ##\vec{v} \times \vec{B}## component will always be perpendicular to ##\vec{v}##, but the ##\vec{E}## component...

Such a particle is not isolated--it has to interact with the barrier and the slits to produce the interference pattern.

Meaning, basically no actual real systems at all. That doesn't look like a good basis for an interpretation to me.

This seems obviously contrary to experiment: for example, a model like this, it seems to me, would predict that we should not see straight tracks of particles in bubble chambers.

Thinking of it in terms of top speed puts in an extra step that's not necessary. See my post #34. The mass ratio (for a trip where you have to slow down and stop at the end) can be expressed solely in terms of the proper acceleration and the distance to be traveled. And that formula can be...

Ok, thanks!

The operator controls the computing resources the AI is using. If the operator is forced to shut them down, that shuts down the AI. Yes, the AI is effectively using other resources as well--for example, GitHub's servers and the servers of wherever the hit piece was posted--but the usage of all...