In a message dated 99-06-07 16:12:28 EDT, lanny.sterritt.domain.name.hidden writes:
<<
Why would you believe that there are more "worlds" without physical laws? I
think that we would agree that physical laws are formalized, codified
observations that phenomenae are predictabe/repeatable. Can you imagine
worlds where nothing is predictable? Elementary particles cannot be be
stuck together without "laws". Even the vacuum appears to have structure.
Certainly there can be no observers ever to know of such worlds. In our case
carbon chemistry must be predictable. Is this issue analogous to the
question of why there is something rather than nothing? What does nothing
mean?
L.W.Sterritt >>
Lanny you can send your post directly to <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>, and
everyone will get it.
To answer your question, I could say that, in my opinion, the real essence of
the world is disorder. The world is becoming undone every Planck time and is
also reconstituted every Planck Time, as James Higgo recently stated. What
brings order to chaos is the fact that we can ONLY observe the portion of
this many world which supports our existence, and this is precisely the
portion where "per force" the physical laws exist for if they didn't we would
not be around to observe the world.
George
attached mail follows:
Why would you believe that there are more "worlds" without physical laws? I
think that we would agree that physical laws are formalized, codified
observations that phenomenae are predictabe/repeatable. Can you imagine
worlds where nothing is predictable? Elementary particles cannot be be
stuck together without "laws". Even the vacuum appears to have structure.
Certainly there can be no observers ever to know of such worlds. In our case
carbon chemistry must be predictable. Is this issue analogous to the
question of why there is something rather than nothing? What does nothing
mean?
L.W.Sterritt
> ----------
> From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden
> Sent: Sunday, June 6, 1999 1:48 PM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Fwd: Why physical laws
>
> <<Message: Why physical laws>>
> In a message dated 99-06-05 08:27:11 EDT, dude.domain.name.hidden 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.
>
Received on Mon Jun 07 1999 - 22:57:26 PDT