## Comment Re:Prove it! (Score 1) 226

My parallel self just showed your parallel self an alternate universe. Go ahead, check it out. You'll see.

One might see this article as an argument in favor of an infinite universe, as that is no less probable than that zillions of universes exist but not *all* possible universes exist. I suggest something entirely different, an idea I cannot entirely explain at this time: Inferred computation applying to the power set of the natural numbers.
Without discussing that prematurely, I can say that it leads one to consider that the phenomenon by which our universe appears to be "computed" (Wheeler's "It From Bit") would also make *all* possible computation appear to be computed. Essentially that would mean all possible universes exist.
The idea also embraces the concept of a block universe - a universe that is eternal and only seems to us (within it) to have a certain finite age. It is utterly reasonable that an infinitely old universe that appears to have expanded far beyond the confines of our event horizon would also seem to have already expanded for an infinitely long time.

Wow, this sounds like a really great idea. Except that 50 generations ago, there were theoretically 2^49 possible contributors to my DNA. Of course that number, 562,949,953,421,312, is far greater than the total number of humans who have ever lived, which implies that most of my ancestors must be "repeats". To put that another way, we are ALL inbred in the grand scheme of things. A familial relationship can be established between any given pair of living humans by going back less than 50 generations. That's right, Malcolm X and the Grand Wizard of the KKK are cousins. You knew that already -- it's not like there's anywhere else for humans to come from than other humans.
The implication for this purported study, I think, is that it is nonsense. Pick any living human, and any 1000-year-old town. Yes, that person "came from" that town.

OK, so two people play this game, each has about the same chance of winning, and that chance is 1 in 3? BTW, nowhere in the original article does it state that.

On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli