Why on earth should dragons not exist? Why should that be a 'nonsense
bitstring'? Why should it not be describable mathematically? I am convinced
that such universes do exist, about as convinced as I am that you exist. If
they don't, MWI is false.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 1:18 AM
> To: amalcolm.domain.name.hidden
> Cc: R.Standish.domain.name.hidden; everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com
> Subject: Re: Flying rabbits and dragons
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
> > > Why it fails is that you assume that all universes are wffs. The
> > > underlying challenge of white rabbits and dragons is that the number
> > > of non-wffs vastly outnumber the number of wffs. The assumption is
> > > that that each non-wff corresponds to to a white rabbit universe. As
> > > we discussed, and you have explained fairly clearly on your web page,
> > > most non-wff universes are in fact indistinguishable from a wff
> > > universe sufficiently close to it, so may be identified with it. In
> > > that case, the number of non-wff universes corresponding to white
> > > rabbits or dragons (ie actually recognisable paranormal phenomena) is
> > > a vanishingly small proportion of the total.
> >
> > No! I am very sorry, but I have to correct this - every sentence above
> is
> > false!!! (Though stemming from one underlying misunderstanding, I
> think.)
> >
> > One of the main reasons to use the formal systems approach is that it
> solves
> > the principal interpretation problem - some symbol strings build wff's,
> some
> > wff's are axiom sets, some axiom sets build theories, some theories
> specify
> > universes. In my first post to this thread (my web pages don't mention
> > wff's - yet), wff's rather than non-wff's are selected - wff's are a
> > precondition for the specification of *any* universe (with or without
> > dragons/white rabbits); a non-wff is like a nonsense bitstring - totally
> > irrelevant (except conceivably for some measure purposes).
>
> We're obviously running up against a misunderstanding here, which I
> believe we should be able to resolve. Surely dragon universes are
> nonsense bitstrings (the non wffs mentioned above), just ones that
> happen to be close to a mathematical system, but not so close to be
> indistinguishable. I thought the whole point of our argument was that
> while most bitstrings are non-wff, the vast majority of them are
> completely uninterpretable, and hence irrelevant. Of the ones that
> are interpretable, the vast majority will be indistinguishable from a
> mathematical system. (Sorry, I realise the last sentence of the above
> paragraph that you objected to is a little misleading) This then
> justifies the Tegmark position of adopting the "all mathematical
> systems" plenitude from the more basic "all bitstrings" plenitude.
>
> >
> > The only way that a universe couldn't be specified by a wff is if it is
> not
> > mathematically modellable (*and* certain other conditions pertain),
> since
> > mathematics is grounded in formal systems (see fig 1 in Tegmark's paper)
> and
> > formal systems are derivable from axiom sets (a subset of all wffs).
> >
> > > I am currently writing a paper as I mentioned outlining this argument
> > > (amongst others). Currently, it is in draft hand-writing form, so I
> > > can't send it to you yet. I hope to type it up in the next week or
> > > so. It would be useful getting feedback - maybe we could even
> > > co-author it.
> >
> > I think it would be a good idea if some people on the list look over
> > drafts/pre-drafts of papers (I don't mind volunteering in this case,
> though
> > I'm afraid I've too much on my plate to co-author at the moment - thanks
> for
> > the offer anyway), but potential commenters should stick to making
> factual
> > points (otherwise interminable discussions could ensue), and authors
> should
> > try to be fair to alternative all-universe hypotheses.
> >
> > May be one day we'll all agree on one theory?
> >
> > Alastair
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 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 Mon Oct 25 1999 - 02:30:18 PDT