Re: Have all possible events occurred?

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:06:49 -0400

Dear Norman,

    You ask a very important question!

    As I see it, we need to show that mere *existence* is equivalent to
"occurance". I would argue that "*occurance* is relational and contextual
and *existence* is not. Therefor, the mere a priori *existence* of all
possible OMs, Copies, Worlds, or whatever, DOES NOT NECESSITATE *Occurance*.
It merely allows the *possibility*.

Kindest regards,

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Samish" <ncsamish.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:22 AM
Subject: Have all possible events occurred?


>
> "Stathis Papaioannou" writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to
> distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process
> works
> as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then
> there
> will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience
> whatever outcome you are leaving to chance. Probability is just a first
> person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic,
> because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and
> because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a
> time.
>
> Stathis,
> When you say "if you believe that everything possible exists" are you
> implying that everything possible need NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)?
> Wouldn't this mean that space-time was not infinite? What hypothesis
> could
> explain finite space-time?
>
> If you believe that everything possible exists, does this not mean that
> there exists a universe like ours, only as it will appear 10^100 years in
> our future? And that there also exists a universe like ours, only as it
> appeared 10^9 years in the past? And that, in all worlds, all possible
> events have occurred?
> Norman
Received on Sun Jun 26 2005 - 13:01:34 PDT