RE: Turing vs math

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:51:31 +0100

Why do you need multiple, non-interacting universes, when a sigle
everything-universe plus WAP will explain our existence? Purely because of
flying rabbits?

My solution, I remember now, is that the changes of one flying rabbit
appearing for 10-43 seconds are one in a 10E43, say, so we should see one
every second. But we dont notice because a Planck time is too small to
notice. For a stable rabbit to appear, it would be 1 in 10E86 to appear for
two planck-times, and if it were to be there for a whole second, that would
be 1 in 10E1849.

That's pretty unlikely.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hal.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:hal.domain.name.hidden.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 5:36 PM
> To: hal.domain.name.hidden; james.higgo.domain.name.hidden.co.uk
> Subject: RE: Turing vs math
>
> > What that postulates is that everything exists, and that means you exist
> and
> > I exist in an infinity of all possible variations. I'm perfectly
> comfortable
> > with this, as I am an MWI-er.
> >
> > In this view, the only reason you ever get a physical 'law' is that when
> the
> > random relationships we see as laws break down (which is most of the
> time),
> > we cease to be able to observe it, as the environment then ceases to be
> > hospitable to life. The same reson an MWI-er will give for us never
> seeing a
> > vacuum collapse: they occur, but we don't observe those eigenstates in
> which
> > they do, as we aren't alive.
>
> Only if it's a major breakdown. Laws that have small exceptions and
> loopholes would still be consistent with our existence.
>
> > The question is, given that all worlds exist, and that the WAP explains
> why
> > we find ourselves in a congenial environment, WHY have I never seen a
> flying
> > rabbit? Why should not the 'laws' break a little bit, to allow
> non-lethal
> > event like that, then repair themselves?
>
> Well, I just asked you the same thing in another message! I don't think
> you can explain this without invoking multiple universes.
>
> The normal all-universe explanation is to consider two universes.
> One has physical laws as we know them: F=ma (one of Newton's laws), etc.
> The other has a law like "F=ma except when Merlin waves his magic wand".
> This universe allows for flying rabbits and other magical objects, but
> is otherwise basically lawful and people can evolve in it.
>
> Now, obviously the program to compute the second universe is much more
> complicated than the program to compute the first one. It has all these
> special exceptions in it for when magic is allowed to work, and how.
> So it is a bigger program.
>
> We then invoke the principle that large-program universes are inherently
> less likely than small-program universes, and presto! we have it more
> likely that we live in a universe without flying rabbits, without
> magic, etc. That's the general argument we are striving to achieve.
>
> I do think that this argument has some problems, but it is appealing and
> if the holes can be filled it seems to offer an answer to the question.
> What do you think?
>
> Hal
Received on Thu Oct 21 1999 - 09:54:44 PDT