- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Federico Marulli <marulli.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:40:04 +0100 (CET)

Federico Marulli <federico.marulli.domain.name.hidden>

David Barrett-Lennard wrote:

*> In the thread "a possible paradox", there was talk about a vanishingly
*

*> small number of "magical" universes where strange things happen.
*

*> However, it seems to me that the bigger risk is that a "normal"
*

*> universe like ours will be the atypical in the ensemble!
*

I completely agree with you,

but I haven't understood yet why everyone speaking about this topic is

so interested in the number of these "magic universes". I don't

understand what would be the problem! Also if there was only a very

small fraction of these "magic universes" (anyway infinite in number)

there would be a paradox. I believe the point is that we have to

understand if the observers living in this strange part of our

multiverse may be considered just unlucky or, more probably, if we have

to accept the fact that these observers may be perfectly equivalent to

us.

Matt King wrote:

*> The fact that physical systems in our universe do obey
*

probabilistic

*> laws like thermodynamics is therefore extremely good evidence that we
*

*> are not in such a 'magical' universe.
*

but I think this possible explanation carries some problems and I'm

still waiting a Matt answer to my questions:

*>Tegmark and other people think that mathematical existence = physical
*

*>existence. But we are saying that there are infinite observers for whom
*

*>the physical evidence always (or almost) contradict the mathematical
*

law

*>of probability. What could these other observers think? Could they
*

think

*>that, by coincidence, the mathematical existence is always (or almost)
*

in

*>contraddiction with physical existence? And, if so, how could they
*

study

*>the universe? Maybe through other "types" of mathematics? May "our"
*

*>mathematics is not so fondamental? May we have "our" mathematics only
*

*>because we live in this part of the multiverse? Or math is truly
*

universal

*>and consequently the assumption "mathematical existence = physical
*

*>existence" is not so truly universal?
*

What do you think about it?

Federico

Received on Tue Nov 04 2003 - 12:02:11 PST

Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:40:04 +0100 (CET)

Federico Marulli <federico.marulli.domain.name.hidden>

David Barrett-Lennard wrote:

I completely agree with you,

but I haven't understood yet why everyone speaking about this topic is

so interested in the number of these "magic universes". I don't

understand what would be the problem! Also if there was only a very

small fraction of these "magic universes" (anyway infinite in number)

there would be a paradox. I believe the point is that we have to

understand if the observers living in this strange part of our

multiverse may be considered just unlucky or, more probably, if we have

to accept the fact that these observers may be perfectly equivalent to

us.

Matt King wrote:

probabilistic

but I think this possible explanation carries some problems and I'm

still waiting a Matt answer to my questions:

law

think

in

study

universal

What do you think about it?

Federico

Received on Tue Nov 04 2003 - 12:02:11 PST

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