CORRECTION -- sorry -- Ben Udell.
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, alternatives of the types studied in 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
