Re: Let There Be Something

From: Norman Samish <ncsamish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:04:29 -0700

If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that
can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will
continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe
has been played in the past, and will be played in the future, over and over
again. How strange and pointless it all seems.

Norman Samish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----- Original Message -----
From: ""Hal Finney"" <hal.domain.name.hidden>
To: <daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>; <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something


> Tom Caylor writes:
>> I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get
>> something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a
>> selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it
>> is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of
>> nothing.
>
> I would suggest that the multiverse concept is better thought of in
> somewhat different terms. It's goal is not really to explain where the
> universe comes from. (In fact, that question does not even make sense
> to me.)
>
> Rather, what it explains better than many other theories is why the
> universe looks the way it does. Why is the universe like THIS rather
> than like THAT? Why are the physical constants what they are? Why are
> there three dimensions rather than two or four? These are hard questions
> for any physical theory.
>
> Multiverse theories generally sidestep these issues by proposing that
> all universes exist. Then they explain why we see what we do by invoking
> anthropic reasoning, that we would only see universes that are conducive
> to life.
>
> Does this really "not explain anything"? I would say that it explains
> that there are things that don't need to be explained. Or at least,
> they should be explained in very different terms. It is hard to say
> why the universe "must" be three dimensional. What is it about other
> dimensionalities that would make them impossible? That doesn't make
> sense. But Tegmark shows reasons why even if universes with other
> dimensionalities exist, they are unlikely to have life. The physics
> just isn't as conducive to living things as in our universe.
>
> That's a very different kind of argument than you get with a single
> universe model. Anthropic reasoning is only explanatory if you assume the
> actual existence of an ensemble of universes, as multiverse models do.
> The multiverse therefore elevates anthropic reasoning from something of
> a tautology, a form of circular reasoning, up to an actual explanatory
> principle that has real value in helping us understand why the world is
> as we see it.
>
> In time, I hope we will see complexity theory elevated in a similar way,
> as Russell Standish discusses in his Why Occam's Razor paper. Ideally we
> will be able to get evidence some day that the physical laws of our own
> universe are about as simple as you can have and still expect life to
> form and evolve. In conjunction with acceptance of generalized Occam's
> Razor, we will have a very good explanation of the universe we see.
>
> Hal Finney
Received on Fri Oct 28 2005 - 20:08:29 PDT