Joel Dobrzelewski wrote:

Within the Universe that generates all things... All things will happen.
 
Fred Chen wrote
> A resolution to the White Rabbits problem accepted by most on the
> distribution requires us to insist that we live in the simplest
> possible universe containing SAS's. So it would be impossible or
> highly improbable that we can create universes with SAS's (e.g., by
> constructing cellular automata).

I just don't understand the White Rabbit problem.  Again, in a Universe
where Everything happens, some worlds are going to have white rabbits, and
others blue, and others flying, and others hopping.
 


Fred like so many others conceive of the MW as separate universes, and we live in the simplest possible one, one that does not have white rabbits. I would call this viewpoint an extension of the One World (OW) point of view. It is unsatisfactory because it does not address the most important issue of consciousness, and the mind-body problem.

My position, is that there are no separations between worlds. There is only one single huge world, the plenitude and we live in it. The plenitude is choke full of white rabbits. In fact most of it is white rabbit stuff. The reason we don't see them is that our consciousness anthropically constrains what we can observe and filters out the white rabbits just like inhabitants of Flat Land can only see objects in two dimentions. My approach explains and equates the rationality of consciousness to the rationality of the world we observe. The analogy with Flat Land is that their two dimensions correspond to our rationality (set of beliefs, thinking rules, neuronal and sensory properties and so on). For example, physicists living in the 19th century, because of their beliefs, would have called "White Rabbit," outcomes of some quantum experiments involving superposition, or entanglement. Greek philosophers would have called "White Rabbits" devices like cars, TVs and flashlights. Of course, after an expossure to twentieth century science, their beliefs would be modified and what used to be White Rabbits would become hackneyed household hare. So the perception of white rabbits is definitely in the eyes of the beholder. A very relativistic attitude.

Probability has nothing to do with it.  (And is meaningless, in my opinion,
when it comes to infinite collections of things.)
Joe
You raise a good question regarding the probability of infinite sets. It has been the subject of infinite discussions on this list.... dismissing it as meaningless does not solve the problem of why event A may be more probable than event B even though both may have infinite measure in the plenitude.

George

Reply via email to