On 1/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">John K Clark</b> <<a href="mailto:jonkc@att.net">jonkc@att.net</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
gts wrote:<br><br>> Which statement is most true?<br>> A) E is frequent because it is probable.<br>> B) E is probable because it is frequent.<br><br>If Copenhagen is right then something is frequent because it is probable. If
<br>Many Worlds is right then something is probable because it is frequent.<br><br>trillion universes where a tornado does such an extraordinary thing and a<br>infinite number where it does not, then the probably you will be living in
<br>such a wonderful universe are zero, not almost zero, but absolutely<br>precisely exactly ZERO. If you want infinite universes then you need<br>statistical mathematics that can accommodate infinity, we don't have that
<br>yet.<br></blockquote></div><br><br>It's not called Infinite Worlds, just "Many" Worlds. I think 'many' is a fairly subjective term.<br><br>Is it possible that there are an infinite number of possibilities, but the workspace/array to hold the number of eigenstates being tested is limited to your *really big* number?
<br><br>Perhaps there is a yet unknown bound for the number of possible states relative to the total energy in the system being measured. Intuitively, there seem to be moments where there is some optimization shortcuts in the computation of the universe when nobody is even looking :)
<br>