The fact that they can remove the cutoff while calculating a consistent probability doesn't really explain how they think a universe will actually end.
I'm not following you here. Would you agree that there is no way to define probability consistently in an infinite space without using a cutoff? By "removing the cutoff" are you talking about the few measures where they took a limit of it going to infinity and obtained a finite non-zero probability? I don't think that was central to what they were saying, as the main example most people care about is the causal patch cutoff, which makes the most physical sense.
They did provide a physical interpretation of how they actually think it will end. Namely, that observers get thermalized when they run into the event horizon. I'm a little unclear on what they're saying there though, since the usual interpretation is that the infalling observer only gets thermalized from the perspective of another observer far away... not from their own perspective, which I think is what they are saying will happen.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-09-30 12:30 am (UTC)The fact that they can remove the cutoff while calculating a consistent probability doesn't really explain how they think a universe will actually end.
I'm not following you here. Would you agree that there is no way to define probability consistently in an infinite space without using a cutoff? By "removing the cutoff" are you talking about the few measures where they took a limit of it going to infinity and obtained a finite non-zero probability? I don't think that was central to what they were saying, as the main example most people care about is the causal patch cutoff, which makes the most physical sense.
They did provide a physical interpretation of how they actually think it will end. Namely, that observers get thermalized when they run into the event horizon. I'm a little unclear on what they're saying there though, since the usual interpretation is that the infalling observer only gets thermalized from the perspective of another observer far away... not from their own perspective, which I think is what they are saying will happen.