Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 19:25, 1Z a écrit :
> > Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 18:29, 1Z a écrit :
> > > > I've never seen an HP universe. Yet they *must* exist in a mathematical
> > > > reality, because there are no random gaps in Platonia. Since all
> > > > mathematical
> > > > structures are exemplified, the structure corresponging to (me up till
> > > > 1 second ago)
> > > > + (purple dragons) must exist. If there is nothing
> > > > mathematical to keep out of HP universe, the fact that I have never
> > > > seen one is
> > > > evidence against a mathematical multiverse.
> > >
> > > I'd say it is evidence that you're not currently in an HP universe.
> > > Considering HP universes have low measure (even in mathematical only MWI
> > > as COMP), not being in one is not surprising.
> >
> > What measure they have depends on the flavour of MW. In a purely
> > mathematical MW, each configuration of matter is exemplified once.
>
> Why is it so ? I'd say at first glance that every configuration of matter is
> exemplified an infinity of time. Like I can see a video in 320x240, 640x480,
> 1024x768, xxxxx, 100000x100000... each time it's the same "footage" but each
> version differ with the "accessible" information content of the scene.
But what you call "accessible information" is the actual , objective
configuration. We call them the "same footage", but that is a
human-centric definition of the "same".
> So for
> a specified level of information I could agree that there is only one
> configuration... but there should exists in a mathematical MW an infinity of
> level.
>
> > (Barbour's theory is close to this, but he also has "mists", quantum
> > probability measures, which are not apriori necessary).
> >
> > > And if you were in one or noticed
> > > weird events you wouldn't writing this... Absence of proof is not proof
> > > of absence.
> >
> > So there *are* unicorns?
>
> No, just that you can't conclude that unicorn don't exists only because you've
> never seen one...
But that is the only reason anyone has to conclude that they
don't exist. If it isn't a good reason, therefore, they do exist.
> You could conclude with an high certainty that unicorn
> don't exist with more evidences... Have you such evidences ?
Absence of evidence is good reason. It just isn't logically certain.
> beside that
> you've never met Harry Potter ? ;-D
> Quentin Anciaux
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Oct 24 2006 - 15:00:48 PDT