Alastair Malcolm wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Higgo James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > As for flying rabbits, one appeared on my ceiling as I was reading your
> > post, but as it was only there for 10E-43 seconds, I did not notice it.
> The
> > odds against it remaining there for two consecutive Planck times are
> > vanishingly small.
> Flying rabbits from contrived universes (ie from some of the more complex
> mathematical structures which should outnumber our own (presumed) one if the
> challenge to Tegmark's hypothesis is correct) do not have to obey the
> Uncertainty Principle.
> Alastair

Right!  Nothing "has to obey" the Uncertainty Principle.  Remember that
the outcome of any experiment can only be predicted with a probability.
So it's "possible" that we could make consecutive alternate measurements
of an electron's position and momentum, and find that they seem to be
well defined.  But that's not usually what is seen.  The odds of that
are very small.  I think (if I may be so bold) that  James was trying
to point out that we are in a universe that has a lot of non-sensical
things going on - just very rarely.

If we assume that this idea of a measure over universes is possible to
define, then there *will* be some mathematically derivable laws of 
physics (read, "laws of probability") based on the relative SSA -
that is, what the next conscious observer moment will be, given the
current conscious observer moment.  We'd like to show that these laws
are the ones we observe.  Regardless, it seems plausible to assume that
the laws connecting observer moments when the observer is, say, 10
years old, are qualitatively the same as those when she's, say, 30 
years old.  Hence consistency.  Hence, no flying rabbits.

Chris Maloney

"Knowledge is good"
-- Emil Faber

Reply via email to