> > Brent says: >> >> The question is, "Can observers exist in a wabbity world?". > > If the world was wabbity > then some elements of the world would exist with absolutely no reason at all. > Furthermore the world would be irrational and inconsistent. Inconsistency of > the world would make the drive for completeness irrelevent. There could be a > wall around the world with absolutely no justification for this wall (back to > the Middle Ages before Copernicus). My earlier post deriving the existence of > the Plenitude using the rationality of the world as a starting point would be > irrelevent and therefore irrationality would preclude the need for the > Plenitude. The Copenhagen school would actually advocate the simplest > approach to QM. Observers brains would be governed by wabbity physical > processes and would therefore be partially or totally incoherent. All you MWI > groupies would be nuts (which actually may be the case already for some of > you) and would better disband. > > George
Of course at some level of arbitrariness observers (at least observers like us) could not exist. What I was wondering is what level of arbitrariness is consistent with the WAP. Note that many people believe they have seen ghosts or witnessed miracles or other paranormal phenomena - maybe the world is just that little bit wabbity. Of course all these paranormal experiences are purported to have causes - the causes just aren't consistent with science; they're consistent with some religious or spritual world view. An alternative to the mathematics=existence multiverse is that everything exists and we have evolved so as to only perceive a rational subset of this everything - but evolution isn't perfect; so we sort of perceive wabbits that are close to the boundary of being consistent. Sort of like QM virtual particles that can only exist for small space-time intervals; these wabbits could only occur to an observer in a very limited way. Brent Meeker
