Tom Caylor writes:
>It seems to me that as soon as we talk about measure, it is equivalent to
>talking about one (physical!) universe. This is similar to your George
>Levy's taking the ratio of the lengths of two line segments. You don't
>need a multiverse to do that. I think that talking of measure in the
>multiverse is taking a common sense thing in a single universe and
>(erroneously) trying to make it make sense in the multiverse. I don't
>think it works. So yes I'm ignoring something that doesn't work, in my
>view. I brought up the problem of the additional 10^100 copies, but your
>bringing up the word "measure" doesn't solve it. The reason why you don't
>buy lottery tickets could just as easily be explained in a single universe.
Are you saying that probability can only mean anything in a single physical
universe? And that because apparently probability does have meaning, this is
evidence that there is only a single physical universe? Would you go further
and say that the universe must be finite, because many of the properties of
the multiverse are mirrored in a single infinite universe?
Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Over 100,000 new beginnings at Australia's #1 job site.
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2F&_t=752315885&_r=HM_EndText&_m=EXT
Received on Tue Dec 13 2005 - 19:21:58 PST