Re: Quantum accident survivor

From: Eric Hawthorne <egh.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:05:47 -0800

Bruno Marchal wrote:

>
> Then I would like to underline some basic considerations. A universe
> where
> the only weird thing is the fact to obtain number 6 any time you throw a
> die doesn't violate any "extremely possibility-constraining constraints".
> A universe where, by chance, the Lutezio element always occupy 99.5679459
> percent of the volume available only when it is in a Astato box, doesn't
> transgress the constraints of the existence of self-organization. And so
> on. There could be an infinite of other examples (...and beyond!).
>
As we are all just speculating, you are just speculating that the
physical laws
and initial conditions required to ensure that "a dice always comes up 6" or
"the Lutezio element always occupy 99.5679459 percent of the volume
available
only when it is in a Astato box" would not somehow prevent
self-organization in
that universe.

> Could there be only one "OBSERVABLE POSSIBLE" world?
> ...almost surely the multiverse teory doesn't tell us that...

No, probably it doesn't tell us that. But that theory plus complex
systems theory may tell us that
only a relatively narrow class of worlds are observable. And multiverse
theory plus basic
logic tells us that in any case, there's no communication between those
worlds (in that narrow
class), so for all practical intents and purposes, the other worlds can
be ignored, with the one
exception that the possibility of multiple (albeit highly constrained)
futures at every moment
leads possibly to a true notion of free will, and/or equivalently a true
version of quantum uncertainty
as to the outcome of events in what we perceive as our world line.
Received on Fri Oct 31 2003 - 12:11:10 PST