>
>
> George Levy writes:
> >Russell Standish is as infinite as the continuum, and in
> > fact there is a path along the Russell Standish continuum that eventually
> > becomes George Levy.
>
> Russell Standish Responds
> >No - I don't believe this is true in the MWI of Quantum Mechanics. It
> >may be true of the complete everything universe - as really wierd
> >stuff can happen there.
>
>
>
> I am sorry that Russell did not appreciate the idea of being morphed into me.
> I think he would have liked the experience.
Its nice to have an injection of humour in this group!
>
>
> George Levy writes:
> >So we are all in a sense related through all the
> > conscious points (locus of consciousness?) in the MW that separate us. :-)
>
> Russel Standish replies:
> >Or perhaps reread the elementary QM textbooks. There does appear to be
> >a lot of confusion over precisely what the multiverse is (Not the same
> >as the Everything universe of Tegmark), of measure, of time etc. I
> >applaud Jacques' attempts at clarifying these ideas and keeping us
> >honest. There will of course be several different measures applicable
> >to different sets. For example Wei Dai's universal measure (which
> >applies minimally over bitstrings representing different possibility)
> >is completely unrelated to measure induced by the "wavefunction of the
> >universe" in MWI, that Jacques refers to. The measure referred to in
> >RSSA is most likely the same as the MWI measure, rather than some
> >concept of number of differentiated classical states (eg concsious
> >states), particularly as the latter has the property of growing
> >exponentially with time.
>
>
> Why should we restrict our scope of the universe to anything less than what
> is necessary to maintain us alive? In fact in the presence of QS, the
> effective size of the Universe will increase to whatever it takes to keep us
> alive! If the size of the universe as defined by the MWI is not sufficiently
> large than by all means we are jutified by the WAP to increase its size. The
> problem is not how we could justify QS but how we can avoid the weird stuff
> that happens when our scope is too big. But here again we can use WAP to
> define the limits and eliminate the weird stuff.
>
I am about 70% convinced that the AP (weak or otherwise) actually
constrains us to live in QM style MWI. I am still ruminating on the
subject, and have posted ocasionally on this topic in the past (check
the archives). Hopefully, when I'm convinced enough by my own
arguments, I might write a paper on it.
In any case, if the AP does not constrain us to live in the MWI, I'm
damned if I can think of any other reason why we are living in the MWI
- it becomes one of those weird facts of reality demanding explanation.
> I think that we must take the bull by the horns and in the absence of
> **sufficient reason**, face the possibility of living in the Plenitude or the
> Everything Universe. The challenge is to bridge the gap between this infinity
> and our observable world and to show the power of the WAP to do so.
>
> George
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sun Sep 05 1999 - 17:58:10 PDT