Hal Finney wrote:
> Are you saying that you don't agree that the  anthropic principle
> applied to an ensemble of instances has greater  explanatory
> power than when applied to a single instance?

Russell  wrote:
> Perhaps I'm missing your argument here, but I gather you  are
> claiming that the assumption of a plenitude is on an
> equal  ontological footing as the assumption of a single reality,
> as both are  ab initio moves, not derived from any other principle.
> Whilst I  agree that nothing mandates one case or the other,
> I would disagree with  the assertion of equal ontological footing,
> in that the zero information  principle in particular, or Bruno's
> UDA, or Hal Ruhl's consistency  argument lend strong support
> to a plenitude assumption over a single  reality.
> It seems to me that the only really good reason in  favour of a
> single reality is to preserve some notion of faith in  God,
> as omniscient deities do not seem compatible with  plenitudes.
> And that, I'm afraid is somewhere science cannot  go.

Hal Ruhl wrote:
> So as in the case of my Nothing and my All it seems
> the apex of causation may be neither infinite regression
> "or" termination but rather both [an "and"].

I'm saying that the "All" is on equal ontological footing with the  
"Nothing".  Pulling something out of Nothing is just as believable as  pulling 
something out of All.  I think Quentin touches on the total mystery  of both:
> as I said before I don't think/feel that single universe is on
> the same level as multiverse... Just by using "absurd"  feeling
> I was talking about. If there is a single reality, you have  to
> anwser why this one ? why like this ? what is the ultimate
> reason for the reality to be limited to this subset ? If you  
> take the multiverse(everything) theory this is easily explained.
> On the other hand, multiverse theory by now could not  answer
> why you're experiencing this precise reality among all
> possible that are in the multiverse.

The question "Why this particular something?" is just as  mysterious in the 
context of All as in the context of Nothing. The  problem is that we really 
don't realize how totally All All is.  We are  used to being able to compute 
probabilities in the context of an "all" that is  quantifiable.  So then it is 
tempting to extend that notion to  the All and say like Quentin's first half, 
you take the  multiverse(everything) theory this is easily explained."
But when we realize the total indeterminacy and contingency of this  
universe, extending down to even our first person point of view, and apparently 
the quantum level, then Quentin's second question is just as unanswerable in  
the context of All as in the context of Nothing.  When we realize how All  All 
is, and how complex and contingent this something is, we start eating our  own 
tail like in Hal Ruhl's argument.
Throughout the history of science, the perpetual message from the universe  
is that the sky is wider than the brain.  I'm convinced that if we all,  
including Bruno and his Lobian machine, somehow took a tour of the whole  
(whatever that is), including all of it's intricacies from the smallest  to the 
largest, and the mathematical rules behind it, we would find it so  complex 
and contingent that we would be converted over to the idea that the  universe 
is far greater than anything the ANTHROpic principle dictates.
Even if you do not hold my above conviction, how can you escape the  
possibility that it is true?
To look at this from a different perspective, suppose there was a worm that  
lived in an apple, and the worm was super-intelligent to the point of being 
able  to grasp all of our mathematical concepts that Tegmark claims are  
sufficient to describe all of reality.  Then the worm asks, "Why is it that  
I'm in 
this apple?"  Actually the apple is the whole of observed reality  for the 
worm, so it is equivalent to our observed universe.  However the  observABLE 
universe for the worm is the same as our observable universe.   Then the worm 
up with a multiverse theory along with a Wormopic  Principle, saying that the 
whole observable universe is just complex enough to  sustain the inside of an 
apple.  Surely this must be true, since the worm  can grasp all of 
"Explanatory power" is in the eye of the beholder, and this is infinitely  
true when applied to Everything.

Reply via email to