If you are saying that it is the uncountability itself of copies that
imparts indeterminacy, or changes the preponderancy, then effectively you
are also saying that random selections from all the reals between -1 and +10
do not converge towards a ratio of 10:1 for positive to negative values - I
can't see what other result is possible.
If instead/as well you are saying that the multiplicity of copies somehow
converts the relative occurence of universes to some hypothetical
'extrinsic' "no preponderance" rule, then it seems you are missing the point
of the paper. To take an extremely crude analogy, consider all possible
combinations of red, green, blue and yellow building bricks. There will be
more occurences of green/blue pairs (simple universes) than green/blue/red
triplets (complex universes). But occurences of different types of brick
will be the same (so no bias). One should not assume that physical
universes are the fundamental building blocks in nature - there is no more
necessity to have no preponderance of any particular type of physical
universe than to have no preponderance of a particular type of galaxy, or
grain of sand.
(Note also that copies in the sense referred to in the paper would not be
produced by any 'nested Everything' (assuming they are a legitimate
possibility) - each different possible nested Everything would have to be a
different state, for which there may or may not be copies, dependent on the
correct interpretation of NAP.)
----- Original Message -----
From: H J Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 21 February 2002 03:08
Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper
> Dear Alastair:
> I think you still miss the thrust of my comment.
> As directly as I can say it:
> The Everything is the ensemble of all counterfactuals.
> The counterfactuals cancel out resulting in no information in the
> The Everything and the Nothing are cancelling counterfactuals and thus are
> in the ensemble.
> The Everything is a member of itself.
> The Everything contains infinitely many [uncountably so] nested copies of
> itself. Thus it contains an uncountable number of logical venues [its
> nested selves].
> All types of universes are present an uncountably infinite number of times
> in any of the nested Everythings.
> That is there is no preponderance [an extrinsic property of a universe]
> information in keeping with a definition of an Everything as information
> This seems to comply with NAP since the logical reason for the above is to
> maintain the zero information mantra.
> Either there is a reason why we are in this kind of universe beyond pure
> chance or there is not. If there is then where did that information come
> from if there is no information in the ensemble?