At 10:14 PM 11/16/2005, James N Rose wrote:
An open hypothesis to list members:

"Conservation" as a 'fundamental rule of condition'
is incompatible and antithetical with any notions
of "many worlds".

Either explicitly excludes and precludes the other;
can't have both and retain a consistent existentialism.

J Rose

I haven't kept up with this thread or that idea, but there is no logical reason that a particular attribute such as "conservation" should be universal across a many-world manifold. First of all, "conservation" is ill-defined, but if precisely defined assumes a standard, which implies a teleological approach. And that is one step away from scholasticism. Before you know it, you're quoting Plato. Mathematically, conservation could be defined in terms of least-distance between points, but if the individual worlds are constructed with their own unique space-time topology (sort of by definition--otherwise each world would be the same as the next one) then the term "conservation" would apply only locally. So, strike two. In fact, one could describe each world as a unique slice intersecting and *forming* the surface of the many-world manifold---and each slice could be characterized by its own unique matrix. Postulating the individual world matrix as a set of elements and interactions between elements, one could arrive at an "ideal" (Plato again!) in which each individual world is confined to a minimum number of elements/interactions. Fine. But it would result in each world being congruent (homologous) to every other world. The result would be no difference between worlds, but there is not a shred of evidence that the configuration works that way at all levels. For example, you coffee may have cooled according to the observations setting forth the laws of thermodynamics---and thus predictable, but you sir, probably drove your automobile in a very inefficient manner today, going places that you shouldn't have gone (you didn't know the queue would be so long, or the store would be closed, etc). Now, if you had known that the store would be closed, etc, you would have been a little more efficient, but that would require a prescience that you presumably don't have. Maybe that's why, we can never precisely predict where the electron will "be", because to do so would identify it's "proper" place---and from there we could then define it's ideal position. That we cannot (as yet) do that suggests that this inability to do so is an inherent part of a dynamic system---and is present within all intersects of the many world manifold.

Short answer: Conservatism is a procedure that produces mental constructs of what we thing the world is trying to become. It allows us to fit our observations against the image in our minds, but it has its limitations. There is no perfect river. Or snowstorm. Or politician. It's all in our minds.

Reply via email to