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?
----- 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.