RE: Fwd: Why physical laws

From: Higgo James <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:52:39 +0100

Why have laws at all? where do they come from? We have no need of them IMVHO

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Maloney []
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 11:03 AM
> To: everything-list
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Why physical laws
> wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 99-06-05 08:27:11 EDT, writes:
> >
> > << The answer is that the structure(s)
> > we are in obey physical laws, not because they were cast by
> > fiat from some omnipotent being, but simply because the structures
> > that do obey physical laws are more numerous than those that do
> > not, and hence we are likely to find ourselves in those. >>
> >
> > To paraphrase Einstein, and in keeping with the MWI, when God threw the
> dice,
> > all faces came up. Not just a dice with six faces but one with an
> infinity.
> > This is brute force creation to say the least, requiring no "creative
> > ingenuity" in the human sense. You assume that "the structures that obey
> > physical laws are more numerous than those that do not, and hence we are
> more
> > likely to find ourselves in those."
> > The problem with this reasonning is that it is self sampling. We can
> find
> > ourselves ONLY in those structures that obey physical laws because these
> are
> > the ONLY structures that can support us as rational beings (SAS). The
> > assumption that worlds with (rational) physical laws are more more
> numerous
> > than those without is therefore unwarranted. In fact I would believe in
> the
> > opposite. That the worlds without rational physical laws, (if these
> could be
> > called worlds at all), are more numerous than those with rational
> physical
> > laws.
> >
> Yes and no. I agree that SASs can only find themselves in universes
> with some sort of physical laws: viz: some way to define time. I
> think that the fundamental thing that allows us to define an "SAS
> observer moment" (denote that M) in a given mathematical structure
> (denote the structure S) is that there be some way to define a
> "next" moment, M'. It doesn't matter that, within S, the SAS
> persists throughout its subjective lifetime, or not. All that
> matters is the one moment in question, and the connection between M
> and M'.
> Now, the physical laws for S are derived from the evolution of the
> subjective experience of the SAS as it moves from M to M'. So in
> that sense, you are right, that I made a self-sampling assumption,
> and that I'm only considering structures in which such a definition
> is possible.
> Now, within that subset, I would contend that those structures that
> have stable physical laws are more numerous than ones that have
> random, shifting, incoherent physical laws. This is because, as
> Tegmark indicated in his paragraph 2-G, and which I alluded to in my
> post, that for a structure to have physical laws that change, it
> would have to have more, "ad hoc" axioms, which would make it more
> specific, and thus smaller in measure. (That's an awfully
> hand-waving argument, but it feels right).
> --
> Chris Maloney
> "Knowledge is good"
> -- Emil Faber
Received on Mon Jun 07 1999 - 03:50:13 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST