As I recall, Tegmark also said that there would be classically deterministic 
universes, with no quantum physics at all. So, it seems that an SAS in such a universe 
would have no reason to surmise a Level III multiverse. It makes you wonder what 
things we SASs don't know about, that might have led us to surmise still further 
Levels of the multiverse.

Or conceivably could an SAS in a classically deterministic universe surmise something 
like a Level III multiverse, from considerations of the (ontological?) status(es) of 
terms of alternatives of the types studied logic (e.g. multivalue logic), mathematical 
theory of probability, & ("pure") mathematical theory of information -- such 
disciplines as consider structures of alternatives that exhaust the possibilities (a 
la "p or ~p")?

(Note: These fields seem distinguishable from other areas of math also by being 
concerned with drawing what tend to be irreversibly deductive conclusions -- I mean as 
distinguished from the reversible & equational reasonings which preserve information & 
help allow a same mathematical object to be pursued & applied under quite diverse 
aspects -- so, if there is an area of variational math or optimization which has this 
"irreversible deductions" tendency, it should probably be included among them, but I'm 
not a mathematician & don't know whether there is.).

- Benjamin Udell

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: "spooky action at a distance"

This list is dedicated to exploring the implications of the prospect that all 
universes exist.  According to this principle, universes exist with all possible laws 
of physics.  It follows that universes exist which follow the MWI; and universes exist 
where only one branch is real and where the other branches are eliminated.  Universes 
exist where the transactional interpretation is true, and where Penrose's "objective 
reduction" happens.  I'm tempted to even say that universes exist where the Copenhagen 
interpretation is true, but that seems to be more a refusal to ask questions than a 
genuine interpretation.

Therefore it is somewhat pointless to argue about whether we are in one or another of 
these universes.  In fact, I would claim that we are in all of these, at least all 
that are not logically inconsistent or incompatible with the data.  That is, our 
conscious experience spans multiple universes; we are instantiated equally and 
equivalently in universes which have different laws of physics, but where the 
differences are so subtle that they have no effect on our observations.

It may be that at some future time, we can perform an experiment which will provide 
evidence to eliminate or confirm some of these possible QM interpretations.  At that 
time, our consciousness will differentiate, and we will go on in each of the separate 
universes, with separate consciousness.

It is still useful to discuss whether the various interpretations work at all, and 
whether they are in fact compatible with our experimental results.  But to go beyond 
that and to try to determine which one is "true" is, according to the multiverse 
philosophy, an empty exercise. All are true; all are instantiated in the multiverse, 
and we live in all of them.

Hal

Reply via email to