>From: Alastair Malcolm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:53 AM
>To: Patrick Leahy
>Subject: Re: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Patrick Leahy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: Everything-List <email@example.com>
>Sent: 26 May 2005 19:54
>Subject: RE: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark
>> * But the arbitrariness of the measure itself becomes the main argument
>> against the everything thesis, since the main claimed benefit of the
>> thesis is that it removes arbitrary choices in defining reality.
>I don't think we can reject the thesis that all logically possible
>universes exist, just because its analysis is proving tricky (or even if it
>were to prove beyond us), and certainly not if we have reasonable candidates
>for a measure basis.
I doubt that the concept of "logically possible" has any absolute meaning. It
is relative to which axioms and predicates are assumed. Not long ago the
quantum weirdness of Bell's theorem, or special relativity would have been
declared "logically impossible". Is it logically possible that Hamlet doesn't
kill Polonius? Is it logically possible that a surface be both red and green?