Re: NYT (Op-Ed) on Multiverse Theory

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:04:19 +0200

Ok but here history has its basic inescapable role.
And brain physics or psychiatry should only make things
less predictable, I think.

Bruno


At 02:51 19/04/03 +0100, uv wrote:
>Bruno said
>
> > > Whoa there. 80% of Americans (or something) believe the world
> > >was created by some bearded guy
> > >in six days.
>
> > "monkey see, monkey do". Nice expression.
> > With a population of monkeys, you get something like a bose condensation,
> > capable of transforming a democracy into a one party country where
> > everyone (almost) think in the same direction.
> > That's what is happening in France and Belgium, today ...
> > Quite depressing ...
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> >
>
>Now the problem is that you have the possibility of such effects occurring
>at various levels and being relevant to scientific work on some of them
>only.
>
>I give four rough categories and do not claim other than pro tem
>practical (not metaphysical) justification for them.
>
> 1.Crowd psychology. (as can apply and be applied mathematically in
>stock market shifts and pressures, etc.). Market surveys, neural network
>stock studies, Lewin, Leeper, Wertheimer etc but ultimately shading into
>category 4. at least for the three names just mentioned.
>
> 2. Religion. It could be God, (ones own or someone else's - (partly
>covered by 4)) etc.etc.
>
> 3. Statistical "luck". May cover anthropic-type arguments,
>approaches like that of Rees (astro-ph/0101268) etc. etc. May also
>lead to rational and semi-rational arguments about Newcomb paradox,
>Monty Hall style arguments etc.
>
> 4. Psychiatry. Already much used by police in forensics trying to
>pinpoint crimes, and more generally to predict reactions of people
>individually and en bloc, as I pointed out in this forum on the 16th.
>('monkey see, monkey do'). Often used for monkeys, people with damaged
>minds etc. but can clearly find other uses, such as perhaps the public
>of a whole country. (Stanley Milgram's famous studies are probably
>mainly more 1 than 4, but since the categories are for classification
>only that probably hardly matters).
>
>But these are just a few of the options and as I pointed out, what seems to
>work at least in a limited way is brain physics (approach 4), and this has
>the virtue that quite basic and variable ideas can be tried, tested and
>improved on or disgarded. And most importantly it remains for the most
>part as science and not conjecture or simply educated guessing.
>
>I daresay marketing managers or science fiction film screenplay writers
>might prefer a different approach. They would likely want to use
>spindoctors or image consultants etc.(roughly approach 1 with some 3).
Received on Tue Apr 22 2003 - 05:05:58 PDT