Norman, you seem to arrive back at Fred Hoyl's
infinite harmonic worldview without any thoughts of a
begin or end. Although that sounds reasonable - as far
as our capabilities are concerned, but we (who?) like
to go a step further and satisfy our "logic" or at
least "taste" by (fairytales?) theories fitting our
present mental capabilities.
--- Norman Samish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is
> true, then anything that
> can exist does exist, and anything that can happen
> has happened and will
> continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of
> events that we observe
> has been played in the past, and will be played in
> the future, over and over
> again. How strange and pointless it all seems.
> Norman Samish
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ""Hal Finney"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
> > Tom Caylor writes:
> >> I just don't get how it can be rationally
> justified that you can get
> >> something out of nothing. To me, combining the
> multiverse with a
> >> selection principle does not explain anything. I
> see no reason why it
> >> is not mathematically equivalent to our universe
> appearing out of
> >> nothing.
> > I would suggest that the multiverse concept is
> better thought of in
> > somewhat different terms. It's goal is not really
> to explain where the
> > universe comes from. (In fact, that question does
> not even make sense
> > to me.)
> > Rather, what it explains better than many other
> theories is why the
> > universe looks the way it does. Why is the
> universe like THIS rather
> > than like THAT? Why are the physical constants
> what they are? Why are
> > there three dimensions rather than two or four?
> These are hard questions
> > for any physical theory.
> > Multiverse theories generally sidestep these
> issues by proposing that
> > all universes exist. Then they explain why we see
> what we do by invoking
> > anthropic reasoning, that we would only see
> universes that are conducive
> > to life.
> > Does this really "not explain anything"? I would
> say that it explains
> > that there are things that don't need to be
> explained. Or at least,
> > they should be explained in very different terms.
> It is hard to say
> > why the universe "must" be three dimensional.
> What is it about other
> > dimensionalities that would make them impossible?
> That doesn't make
> > sense. But Tegmark shows reasons why even if
> universes with other
> > dimensionalities exist, they are unlikely to have
> life. The physics
> > just isn't as conducive to living things as in our
> > That's a very different kind of argument than you
> get with a single
> > universe model. Anthropic reasoning is only
> explanatory if you assume the
> > actual existence of an ensemble of universes, as
> multiverse models do.
> > The multiverse therefore elevates anthropic
> reasoning from something of
> > a tautology, a form of circular reasoning, up to
> an actual explanatory
> > principle that has real value in helping us
> understand why the world is
> > as we see it.
> > In time, I hope we will see complexity theory
> elevated in a similar way,
> > as Russell Standish discusses in his Why Occam's
> Razor paper. Ideally we
> > will be able to get evidence some day that the
> physical laws of our own
> > universe are about as simple as you can have and
> still expect life to
> > form and evolve. In conjunction with acceptance
> of generalized Occam's
> > Razor, we will have a very good explanation of the
> universe we see.
> > Hal Finney