Stephen Paul King,
    Thanks for your kind reply, which I am struggling with.  You seem to be 
saying that something can "exist" yet not "occur."  Whether it "occurs" 
depends on relations and context.  Can you give me supporting information, 
hopefully intelligible to one who does not have degrees in math, physics or 
philosophy?  Perhaps I can learn something important.
    This somehow reminds me of Schrödinger's Cat, which I also struggle 
with.  I'm a hard-headed engineer.  To me, Schrödinger's Cat must be either 
alive or dead - I can't believe this both-alive-and-dead-until-observed 
stuff!  There's got to be another answer to the questions that the 
dual-state cat resolves.
Norman

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: Have all possible events occurred?


Dear Norman,

    You ask a very important question!

    As I see it, we need to show that mere *existence* is equivalent to
"occurance". I would argue that "*occurance* is relational and contextual
and *existence* is not. Therefor, the mere a priori *existence* of all
possible OMs, Copies, Worlds, or whatever, DOES NOT NECESSITATE *Occurance*.
It merely allows the *possibility*.

Kindest regards,

Stephen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:22 AM
Subject: Have all possible events occurred?


>
> "Stathis Papaioannou" writes:  Of course you are right: there is no way to
> distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process
> works
> as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then
> there
> will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience
> whatever outcome you are leaving to chance.  Probability is just a first
> person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic,
> because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and
> because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a
> time.
>
> Stathis,
> When you say "if you believe that everything possible exists" are you
> implying that everything possible need NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)?
> Wouldn't this mean that space-time was not infinite?  What hypothesis
> could
> explain finite space-time?
>
> If you believe that everything possible exists, does this not mean that
> there exists a universe like ours, only as it will appear 10^100 years in
> our future?  And that there also exists a universe like ours, only as it
> appeared 10^9 years in the past?  And that, in all worlds, all possible
> events have occurred?
> Norman


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 6/24/2005


Reply via email to