Re: a possible paradox

From: Matt King <>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:35:50 +0000

Hi Hal,

Hal Finney wrote:

>Matt King writes:
>>I should point out that there does remain a vanishingly small
>>possibility that we could be in one of the extremely 'magical' universes
>>where both macroscopic and microscopic laws of physics are skewed in a
>>mutually consistent way, however given the tiny probability of this
>>being the case I think it is quite safe to ignore it.
>That seems rather extreme, because the probablity that we are in a
>"regular" "magical" universe is already vanishingly small and we would
>truly be safe in ignoring it. Even the probability of observing a single
>large scale violation of the laws of probability is vanishingly small.
>("Magical" universes suffer from repeated large-scale violations.)
>Going beyond that and asking for consistency between the physics of the
>large and the small is really gilding the lily. I don't see what would
>motivate you to draw the line there.
Oh I quite agree that it is overwhelmingly likely that we're not in a
'magical' universe anyway. My point concerned trying to *demonstrate*
that we're not, which is easily done if you assume 'magical' universes
with consistent macroscopic and microscopic physics are even rarer than
'magical' universes in general.


When God plays dice with the Universe, He throws every number at once...
Received on Wed Oct 29 2003 - 19:37:13 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST