Re: Let There Be Something

From: Quentin Anciaux <quentin.anciaux.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 00:06:08 +0100

Hi,

as I said before I don't think/feel that single universe is on the same level
as multiverse... Just by using "absurd" feeling I was talking about. If there
is a single reality, you have to anwser why this one ? why like this ? what
is the ultimate reason for the reality to be limited to this subset ? If you
take the multiverse(everything) theory this is easily explained. On the other
hand, multiverse theory by now could not answer why you're experiencing this
precise reality among all possible that are in the multiverse.

Regards,
Quentin

Le Mardi 01 Novembre 2005 20:49, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> My phrase "something from nothing" was not meant
> to restrict my inquiry to origins, in the sense of time or causality,
> but can be viewed in terms of information in general.
>
> It seems that the discussion has not contradicted my initial idea that,
> when it comes to explaining why things are the way they are,
> the multiverse is on the same level playing field as one universe.
>
> Hal Finney simply states that this is not true without supporting it:
> >[The multiverse + AP is]
> >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.
>
> I believe that my statement before:
> >...simply bringing in the hypothetical set of all unobservable things
> >doesn't explain rationally in any way (deeper than our direct
> >experience) the existence of observable things.
>
> applies to the multiverse as well, since
> the multiverse = observable things + unobservable things
> and equivalently
> the multiverse = this universe + unobservable things
>
> I believe my reasoning applies to all selection principles,
> not just the AP.
>
> Also, Bruno wrote:
> >I think we should not confuse the problem of the selection
> >of a (apparant) universe/history from the assumption of a
> >multiverse (like the quantum hypothesis) with the question
> >of explaining the appearances of a multiverse itself. Godelian
> >self-reference can explain both from numbers and their
> >nameable and unameable relations....
> >A physical theory is a set of rules which remains invariant
> >for the transformations allowed in a multiverse. And comp
> >or its generalization makes our apparent multiverse the result
> >of the interference of the possible (with respect the the
> >comp hyp chosen) multiverses.
>
> I see the problem of explaining what the multiverse is in the
> first place (Bruno's second problem) as covered by my inquiry.
> Selecting a smaller "initial" multiverse from the set of all possible
> multiverses (or that could be The Multiverse) is equally an
> unsupportable selection process, outside of the realm of
> rationality. So Bruno claims to be able to explain it. So far I
> haven't been satisfied with his UDA. It seems that his
> assumptions restrict the multiverse in an equally unsupported
> way. It must be a "necessary" premise, equal in validity
> to the premise of just one universe, or
> "what we see is what we get".
>
> Tom
Received on Tue Nov 01 2005 - 18:08:50 PST