[extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant

[Lee Corbin]

Stathis writes

> [Lee wrote]
> > You're often very good about giving proper lip service even
> > to theories you disagree with, but I cannot help reminding
> > readers that dust clouds are static arrangements of particles,
> > no dust cloud being causally related to any other, and no
> > information flow between them being performed in real time.
>
> I used this as an example of a system in random motion.

Oh, sorry.

> There is a non-zero probability that a dust cloud (which is not be
> *perfectly* static) will spontaneously implement a doggy, a ducky
> and an analogue of my brain.

And naturally I see you to mean that the (highly unlikely) gravitational
and EM forces on the particles *cause* subsequent states to flow
from prior states. Okay.

> I used to think that as long as the probability remains non-zero, given infinite time the desired event becomes a certainty. 
> That's not actually true if the probability progressively decreases per unit time period. For example, if the probability of an 
> event occurring in the first year is 1/2, in the second year 1/4, in the nth year 1/(2^n), the probability that the event will 
> never occur is given by the infinite product of (1 - 1/(2^n)), which is not zero but converges to approximately  0.288788 (perhaps 
> someone could check this or work it out exactly).
<

I once computed exactly the same constant.  And I remember the answer:  .288788...
in exact agreement with you. There happens to be a very complicated way of
computing that number very efficiently using partitions.

> So depending on the cosmological model, some things may never happen,

That is an interesting consequence;  and new to me.

Lee

> which is a disappointment; but under other models, such as most multiverse
> models, everything that can happen, does happen.