- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:52:24 +1100 (EST)

This is close to some ideas I have attempted to publish. I gave a

lecture on this and related ideas last year, and now have a

pre-submission paper on it. The essence of the paper is that there is

little difference in the process determining physical laws and

constants, and the process that gave rise to our amazing

biodiversity. I suppose this is a polite way of saying that the laws

of physics evolved.

I haven't got the paper polished to the point where I'm prepared to

submit it, however I'll post a URL to this list when I'm ready.

You may also want to look at

http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/ps/alife6.ps.gz, which is an

unpublished paper of mine from 1998 (rejected because it was too flaky

:()

*>
*

*> I've just come up with an interesting thought: suppose probabilities (from a
*

*> 1st person perspective) are determined by the probability distribution that
*

*> results follow. For example, we can imagine that we start out with an
*

*> initial set of probabilities. These probabilities describe the laws of
*

*> physics, so that when the probabilities are followed, we see (macroscopical)
*

*> consistency. But as time passes, the chance that results did not reflect
*

*> the probability perfectly at some time increases. So, if probabilities were
*

*> determined by the distribution of their results, then at these times when
*

*> the distribution did not perfectly reflect the probability, the probability
*

*> changed to reflect this distribution. In this way, the laws of physics
*

*> could actually be evolving. Perhaps at first, all probabilities were equal,
*

*> so the norm was total chaos. But the laws of physics eventually evolved
*

*> into laws that were capable of sustaining life, and that's where we came
*

*> along. The reason we see the universe as it is today is because of the
*

*> anthropic principle.
*

*>
*

*> What do you think about this idea?
*

*>
*

*> ______________________________________________________
*

*> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
*

*>
*

*>
*

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Tue Dec 14 1999 - 14:50:15 PST

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:52:24 +1100 (EST)

This is close to some ideas I have attempted to publish. I gave a

lecture on this and related ideas last year, and now have a

pre-submission paper on it. The essence of the paper is that there is

little difference in the process determining physical laws and

constants, and the process that gave rise to our amazing

biodiversity. I suppose this is a polite way of saying that the laws

of physics evolved.

I haven't got the paper polished to the point where I'm prepared to

submit it, however I'll post a URL to this list when I'm ready.

You may also want to look at

http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/ps/alife6.ps.gz, which is an

unpublished paper of mine from 1998 (rejected because it was too flaky

:()

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Tue Dec 14 1999 - 14:50:15 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST
*