Hal,
I understand what you are saying and it makes a lot of sense.
However, if you were to accept there are discrete units of time, space,
and matter then the answer to the question "what number will you pick?"
simply becomes the total number of possible interactions of these
discrete units.
Also, you can have an infinite number of worlds, and still have
large numbers of worlds that aren't computable (of course, I know I'm
not really saying anything there that everyone doesn't already know).
My thought is that somehow some of these crazy worlds that we think are
computable may not in reality be computable, because we are not
factoring in the relationship with consciousness in creating the
reality. That was sort of the point with the Osama as prez example.
What about worlds in which pigs evolved to fly? If this violates
fundamental concepts of biochemistry, could such worlds exist? No, the
permutations of the solutions to those worlds don't lead to such
outcomes. (This is not to say a flying pig could not suddenly appear,
but I am referring specifically to an evolutionary process).
I think the concept of a MWI that leads to an infinite computational
device which can then recreate the whole process ad infinitum is very
elegant and self-explanatory. Once the computer reaches infinite
processing power, it is removed by definition from the confines of time
(which simply records the rate of progress of the processing).
Therefore, you are left with a timeless instrument that creates
everything in an endlessly repeating cycle. But must the infinite
processing machine choose between infinite universes or infinite
repetitions? Must it choose among classes of infinite universes it
creates? Or does it's infinite capacity allow it to create everything
forever (within the range of computability)? I do not understand the
math behind infinite sets well enough to answer these questions...
Hal Finney wrote:
>Danny Mayes writes:
>
>
>>First, regarding the idea of magical universes or quantum immortality
>>for that matter, doesn't this assume a truly infinite number of
>>universes? However, if you start with the idea that the reality we
>>experience is being created by a mechanical/computational process,
>>isn't it more likely that the number of universes is just extremely
>>large? Why should we assume the "creator" (however you choose to
>>define that) has access to infinite resources? Also, everything that
>>makes up our universe appears to have finite characteristics (per QM),
>>so it seems like every possibility within the parameters of the
>>multiverse could be covered by an enormous, but not infinite range of
>>possibility.
>>
>>
>
>In some ways, infinity is a more plausible choice than some large number.
>After all, what number will you pick? A billion? 1.693242 sextillion?
>10 to the 10 to the 10... repeated precisely 142,857 times? Any such
>number would be completely arbitrary. A fundamental theory about
>the universe should not have such magical constants in it. The only
>plausible numbers are 0, 1, and infinity. Maybe I'll throw in 2 if
>I'm feeling generous. Since evidently it takes more than 2 bits of
>information to create the universe, I think the simplest proposal is
>that there are no limits.
>
>
>
>>I think we are overlooking something here. It seems like there should
>>be a quanta of probabilty, just as there is (apparently) with time,
>>space, and matter. In other words, once the probability of something
>>happening falls below a certain threshold, it is not realized. Could
>>there be a Planck scale of probability? Does decoherence somehow keep
>>these strange events from occurring on a macro scale?
>>
>>
>
>It's possible. The concept of a special Planck scale is not part
>of QM. It is an incomplete attempt to merge QM with general relativity.
>Many physicists are coming to view our current attempts along these lines
>as unpromising. See Lawrence Krauss' interview in the new Scientific
>American, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009973A-D518-10FA-89FB83414B7F0000 .
>
>We don't really know how it will work out, whether there are these kinds
>of thresholds for matter or space or energy. But if it does, then I
>suspect you are right and similar limits could exist for probability
>as well. Sufficiently improbable events might not occur in the MWI
>multiverse. (Of course there are other ways to get a multiverse.)
>
>Hal Finney
>
>
>
>
--
Danny Mayes
Law Office of W. Daniel Mayes
130 Waterloo St., SW
P.O. Drawer 2650
Aiken, SC 29802
(803) 648-6642
(803) 648-4049 fax
877-528-5598 toll free
dmayes.domain.name.hidden
Received on Tue Jul 27 2004 - 15:05:20 PDT