To below and many others on the list: Do we really assume the MWI or any setup of the (poorly identified) existence we dream up for the unlimited system of "universes galore" in our little 'material-inhibited' minds, as being totally 'constructed' according to OUR recent explanations of OUR poorly understood observations on THIS little muddy planet during the past split second of its churnings?
John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: "scerir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:07 AM Subject: Re: Computational complexity of "running" the multiverse > From: "Eric Hawthorne" > > > One of the issues is the computational complexity of "running all the > > possible i.e. definable programs" to create an informational multiverse > > out of which consistent, metric, regular, observable info-universes > > emerge. If computation takes energy (as it undeniably does WITHIN our > > universe), then an unfathomably impossibly large amount of > > "extra-universal" energy would be required to compute all > > info-universes. > > Tree points here, or, maybe, three non-senses (in this case > I apolozige). A) Is there a principle of conservation of energy > in MWI? I do not think so. Does it mean that - in principle - > you could have a world in which there is "omnipotence" or > a very large amount of energy? B) Which is the role of > observers in that "info-universal-computation"? Do they > cooperate? Is such a computation a "participatory" computation > (in the sense of Wheeler)? Possibility of delayed choices, > anthropic "functionals", Banah-Tarski weirdness, and other > amenities ... like http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109022 > C) According to Spreng the parameters are three: energy, time, > existing information. Thus you can minimize energy by using > more time and more information. > s.
