I agree, by definition no one can cap many-worlds theory with a ³god²
somewhere up the ladder without some new extra-dimensional (space*time)
theory (unless, does level IV allow this?)
A pseudo-many-worlds multiverse can however have a ³god² if it is of the
ancestor-simulation design (
http://www.simulation-argument.com/). This is of
course to ignore, the whole level 1<2<3<4 multiverse. It is more
understandable, and a little Œcreepier¹-in a believable sort of way when one
considers that our universe¹s physics cannot yet be proven to defy advanced
computer-science.
Ancestor-simulation is a study inwards of our universe. The whole
ancestor-simulation phenomenon is certainly being considered by the
inhabitants of other level 1, 2, 3 & 4 universes who cannot defy their
mathematical physics.
David Kwinter
On 6/6/03 5:31 PM, "John Collins" <johnhcollins.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> The argument that many-worlds theory implies that we are 'almost
> certainly' in a computer simulation has been put forward by many people, and
> there are many similarly themed arguments used to suggest that many-worlds
> theory is 'obviously not true'; most of these arguments contain well hidden
> logical inconsistencies which involve switching back and forth between
> many-world and single world ideas. This leads to a rather strange way of
> counting the different possible 'classical universes' that we might be part
> of. The sleight of hand (or honest mistake) used in these arguments lies in
> the seemingly innocent assumption that a powerful god-like being who builds a
> simulation of our universe must then be the cause of our existence. This would
> be true in a single classical universe, but it is not true in many-worlds
> theory, where we should use a definition of 'causing' or 'implying' involving
> a correlation between different classical universes, ie. that [god-like being
> does not simulate us] =>(almost always) [we do not exist]. This is discussed
> in David Deutsch's 'The Fabric of Reality', where he gives the example that no
> butterflies cause hurricanes by flapping their wings (unless you put one in a
> human built 'hurricane mahine' with a touch sensitive keyboard)..
> How we should correctly 'count the universes' in which we live is by
> starting with what we know exists: Ourselves, the planet Earth, evidence of
> our ancestry, the surrounding galaxies, etc. and looking at what we can
> 'append' to this universe: We could have some universes where there is
> everything we know exists, plus super-intelligient beings who behave as though
> they are controlling us, but for each of these, one would expect many more
> universes containing everything we know exists, plus some generic random
> distribution of (generally non-living) matter, such as some rocks or a cloud.
>
Received on Sat Jun 07 2003 - 04:59:21 PDT