Picking up a thread from a little while ago:

>>Jonathan Colvin: That's a good question. I can think of a chess position
that is 
>>a-priori illegal. But our macroscopic world is so complex it is far 
>>from obvious what is allowed and what is forbidden.
>Jesse Mazer: So what if some chess position is illegal? They are only 
>illegal according to the rules of chess, but the point of the 
>"all logically possible worlds exist" idea is not just that 
>all possible worlds consistent with a given set of rules (such 
>as our universe's laws of physics) exist, but that all 
>possible worlds consistent with all logically possible *rules* 
>exist. So the only configurations that would be forbidden 
>would be logically impossible ones like "square A4 both does 
>and does not contain a pawn".

Pondering on this, it raises an interesting question. Can we differentiate
between worlds that are (or appear to be) rule-based, and those that are
purely random? 

I think it is suggested that any non-contradictory universe (or
world-history) has a finite chance of appearing by chance (randomly
tunneling out of a black hole for instance).

But can we call a purely random universe "rule based"? What is the rule?
Randomness is non rule-based by definition, so the idea of a rule-based
random universe seems a contradiction.

Jonathan Colvin

Reply via email to