You don't exist in an infinite number of places, say scientists

[Medulin]

''You don't exist in an infinite number of places, say scientists''

_http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dont-infinite-scientists.html

Infinite repetition, the idea that planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times, cannot be logically deduced from current physics and cosmology theories. —If you've read about how modern cosmology may imply that, in an infinite universe, the existence of planets and the life forms that live on them must be repeated an infinite number of times, you may have been just a little bit skeptical. So are a couple scientists from Spain, who have posted a paper at arXiv.org criticizing the concept of the infinite repetition of histories in space, an idea closely related to the concepts of "alternate histories," "parallel universes," and the "many worlds interpretation," among others.

skeptics

 

[Buddy]

''You don't exist in an infinite number of places, say scientists''

_http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dont-infinite-scientists.html

Infinite repetition, the idea that planets and living beings must be repeated an infinite number of times, cannot be logically deduced from current physics and cosmology theories. —If you've read about how modern cosmology may imply that, in an infinite universe, the existence of planets and the life forms that live on them must be repeated an infinite number of times, you may have been just a little bit skeptical. So are a couple scientists from Spain, who have posted a paper at arXiv.org criticizing the concept of the infinite repetition of histories in space, an idea closely related to the concepts of "alternate histories," "parallel universes," and the "many worlds interpretation," among others.

skeptics

Interesting article. Thanks for posting.

It was refreshing to at least read why Francisco José Soler Gil and Manuel Alfonseca reject non-classical theories. Seems the two most important concerns relate to a lack of 'certainty' and something in Paul Dirac's work about 'infinities':

[quote author=linked article]
Paul Dirac once stated that the most important challenge in physics was "to get rid of infinity."[/quote]

In The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Dirac does make a case against infinities in a sense, during a discussion of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Quantum vacuum Flux (QVF) which includes a mention of how he comes to this conclusion mathematically.

Dirac states:

A theory which gives rise to infinite transition probabilities of course cannot be correct. We can infer that there is something wrong with QED. This result does not surprise us, because QED does not provide a complete description of nature.

Later, he states that we can only use QED in very limited and relatively low energy experimental situations. Maybe most physicists today still accept that as gospel?

What is more interesting to me is how he could derive a QED-QVF reality, yet be unable to accept it as correct. That, I believe, is the limiting power of a classical, fixed-frame thinking mode which seems to be founded on two implicit assumptions unsupported by any evidence:

1) Reality holds still (there supposedly is some reason to believe in some absolute 'zero motion' frame of reference), and 2) objects in reality are independent of one another (as the subject/object metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle suggests).

If we rid ourselves of limiting assumptions we don't even realize we have, what brilliance might we all have access to in order to address and solve humanity's problems?