--- GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> If the world is rational, and if something that
> could potentially be in many alternatives states,
> ARBITRARILY exists in one of these alternatives
> states with no apparent reason, (in other words it
is
> "fact-like") then this something MUST also exist in
> all other alternatives states. Allowing only one
> state to be real but not the others, would lead to
> an unexplanable situation.
This is related to the wabbit question. Given the
above, is it possible to deduce whether the world is
rational based on observation?
Perhaps the best thing to do is just to compare
the complexity of an observation with that of an equal
size, anthropically filtered but otherwise random
possible observation. The latter case would have
higher complexity.
> Yet another way of proving the Plenitude is to rely
> on Goedel consistency/completeness theorem.
> Insisting on consistency, while trying to
> achieve completeness (which is an impossibility),
> forces the boundary of the set of discourse to
> infinity.
That doesn't prove the plenitude.
> How do you draw the line around the set of creatures
> with the quality of observer? The simplest way is to
> draw it around yourself, and to adopt a relativistic
> philosophy, which I did.
No, it's not simplest, and you still haven't
defined it or "yourself".
=====
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
Received on Thu May 25 2000 - 11:08:23 PDT