I think that if we admit the possibility of multiverse, whether alternative
quantum realities or just somewhere else in space, then the more interesting
question becomes what are the contraints on how those universes could be,
as in, how different could they be than the one? we observe.
Having read only summaries of Tegmark and not the original, I believe
he says something about universes embodying "all (self-consistent)
mathematical structures".
My big focus, albeit with informal intuition only at this point, is to
posit that
all but a tiny subset of such mathematical-structured universes will be
"in principle, unobservable"
because their form and evolution is such as to not permit the creation
or presence of
intelligent observers.
Only those universes whose rules permit the self-organization of stable
emergent systems
(and which have things like consistent notions of locality and metric
space etc) will
ever be "in-principle observable" universes. I believe that the
non-observable universes
should be written off as uninteresting, and we should focus on learning
what is the most
general form of "emergent system evolving" universe.
This is NOT an anthropocentric argument. It is a "mathematical/physical
requirements for self-organization" based
argument. What are those minimum requirements?
Does Tegmark himself have anything to say on this issue?
--
'Here's why the world's in such a mess.
Our bravest and best are the first to die,
They fall on the blades to make way for the rest.
We were so briefly blessed, oh why?'
- Dedicated to Rachel Corrie 1979-2003
Received on Sat Apr 19 2003 - 15:08:07 PDT