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

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:36:47 EDT

In a message dated 08/12/2000 11:12:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

meekerdb.domain.name.hidden writes:

*> I
*

*> guess I still don't see a problem here - unless it is the peculiarity that
*

'

*> his
*

*> universe' is defined retrospectively from his death. I don't see that the
*

*> large number of other branches which have split from 'his universe' have
*

any

*> bearing on anything.
*

*>
*

OK. You are in good company here. I guess you share Jacques Mallah's opinion.

*> Also, I see no reason to believe there are infinitely
*

*> many - though of course the number must be extremely large. If one
*

*> postulates
*

*> a computational model of the multiverse, as is often done these
*

discussions,

*> then the fact that only countably many numbers are computable would seem to
*

*> imply only a finite number of branches within a finite time.
*

The plenitude is a philosophical concept that seems to find an echo in

physics, (and in Murphy's law :-)) Any assumption about the plenitude would

decrease its size and introduce information. Any assumption could also be

matched with the opposite assumption. Since the plenitude is "all that is

possible," assuming that it could be modeled by a discrete machine could be

countered that this is only part of it and that the other part would have to

be continuous, even at the infinitesimal level. Hence the plenitude is

infinite in every respect. The branching is infinite. So while our world

seems to be discrete, (Quantum Theory - in fact discreteness may be an

essential requirement for the evolution of consciousness), the variations

ACROSS worlds does not seem to be similarly constrained.

George Levy

Received on Sun Aug 13 2000 - 11:42:46 PDT

Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:36:47 EDT

In a message dated 08/12/2000 11:12:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

meekerdb.domain.name.hidden writes:

'

any

OK. You are in good company here. I guess you share Jacques Mallah's opinion.

discussions,

The plenitude is a philosophical concept that seems to find an echo in

physics, (and in Murphy's law :-)) Any assumption about the plenitude would

decrease its size and introduce information. Any assumption could also be

matched with the opposite assumption. Since the plenitude is "all that is

possible," assuming that it could be modeled by a discrete machine could be

countered that this is only part of it and that the other part would have to

be continuous, even at the infinitesimal level. Hence the plenitude is

infinite in every respect. The branching is infinite. So while our world

seems to be discrete, (Quantum Theory - in fact discreteness may be an

essential requirement for the evolution of consciousness), the variations

ACROSS worlds does not seem to be similarly constrained.

George Levy

Received on Sun Aug 13 2000 - 11:42:46 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*