RE: this very moment

From: Higgo James <>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:21:14 +0100

You're missing the point: 'the world' for 'you' is your current idea.
Speculation about miracles is part of your current idea. There is no
necessary connection between your speculation and anything else. But there
is certainly an idea out there along the lines of 'I am witnessing a man
turn water into wine'.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fabien BESNARD []
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 May, 2000 10:18 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: this very moment
> This is the first time I post on this list, so I must apologize if I speak
> about something which has been debated many times. I must also apologize
> for
> my english.
> >James, I recently came up with a realization that I think is exactly what
> >you are saying. Basically, I realized that if we accept that everything
> >exists already, then why the hell do we need to bring up probability?
> Sure,
> >it seems as though we live in a universe in which laws govern the way
> >particles behave, but that's only because that universe is guaranteed to
> >exist, somewhere in the plentitude.
> I think I have an argument against this idea that every kind of universe
> exists in the "plenitude" : if this were correct, we would almost
> certainly
> live in a universe that is generic, and complex enough to allow
> intelligent
> lifeform (this what Max Tegmark says, for instance). But what about
> universes in which crazy things happen, but not often enough to prevent
> the
> existence of lifeforms ? For instance, we could imagine a world governed
> by
> the same laws as ours, but sometimes a miracle happens (for instance a guy
> comes from nowhere and turns water into wine). In fact, many people
> believe
> that such a world exists, and that we live in it ! These kinds of worlds,
> I
> will call them "magic worlds", are much more numerous because of the vast
> amount of magical thing that we can imagine. So it is very improbable that
> we live in a world where there is no magic, as it seems to be the case. I
> think that this rules out the theory of "plenitude". If you want to have a
> coherent theory of "plenitude", I think that you should put much less
> things
> in this "plenitude". It seems as though even in this setting you do not
> have
> complete freedom : here is what I think : to have an intelligent being in
> a
> universe you must have a mathematical structure underlying this universe,
> and perhaps no mathematical structure is consistent with miracles or
> magic.
> Fabien

The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and may be privileged.
It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to
deliver it to the intended recipient, this message must not be copied or distributed to
any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
by telephone (+44-20-7337-3500) and destroy the original message. The Gerrard Group reserves
the right to monitor all e-mail messages passing through its network.

This e-mail originates from the Gerrard Group unless otherwise stated. The Gerrard Group
is regulated by SFA and is a member of the London Stock Exchange.
Received on Thu May 11 2000 - 01:23:21 PDT

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