Re: many worlds theory of immortality

From: David Kwinter <david.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:58:15 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Colvin" <jcolvin.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:38 PM
Subject: RE: many worlds theory of immortality



> While I'm a supporter of Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble, I think it is by no
> means clear that just because everything that can happen does happen,
> there
> will necessarily be a world where everyone becomes omniscient, or lives
> for
> ever, or spends their entire life dressed in a pink rabbit outfit.
> "Everything that can happen does happen" is not synonymous with
> "everything
> we can imagine happening does happen". Worlds where we live forever or
> become omniscient or are born dressed in a pink rabbit suit may not be
> *logically possible* worlds. Just as there is no world in the multiverse
> where 2+2=5, there may be no worlds in the multiverse where I live forever
> or spend my entire life dressed in a pink rabbit suit.
>


I think universes are more like frames of a movie, time is descreet, and we
continually move from one universe to the next where continuity exists.
Given this, all the universes that ever are, or will be exist right now in a
platonic view. We just cruise through them. They are infinite in number and
there are ones with every possible arrangement of matter, laws of physics,
combinations of dimensions, etc. Once one thinks the universe is infinite,
there's no reason to limit it to one universe or a multiverse with only
specific components.

"How about a universe that is simply an empty dodecahedron? In the Level IV
multiverse, all these alternative realities actually exist."
"[Level IV multiverses] are almost impossible to visualize; the best one can
do is to think of them abstractly".
-- Max Tegmark, SciAm 05/2003
Received on Fri Apr 15 2005 - 02:01:16 PDT