Tegmark's 4 level "Multiverse" (actually the Multiverse is only one of
the levels) does not really have viewpoints at each level.

In my book, which largely follows the tradition of this list, there is
3 viewpoints identified: 1st person, 1st person plural and 3rd person.

The 3rd person corresponds to the bird viewpoint of the Multiverse, or
Tegmark Level 3 'verse. Calling it a viewpoint is a stretch of the
language since necessarily observers must be embedded in the Multiverse.

Both of the 1st person viewpoints correspond to the frog viewpoint,
the difference being the 1st person plural is an objective viewpoint -
all things in the 1pp vpt will be agreed upon by 2 or more observers,
whereas the 1p vpt is subjective, containing items such as quantum
immortality that are _necessarily_ subjective.

I have tried to identify 1pp with G and 1p with G*, but I'm really
unsure that the analogy is sound.


On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:18:21PM -0500, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> A question arises for me here and elsewhere. To what extent do you hold with 
> Tegmark's Four-Level Multiverse view and to what extent is your theory 
> logically linked to it? I ask this because, for instance, in such a 
> Four-Level world, I'd expect not just two salient views (bird's eye & frog's 
> eye, 3rd-person & 1st-person, etc.), but four. I'd expect not just 
> mind-matter dichotomies but 4-chotomies. And so on. In some cases, one may 
> argue that one distinction across the 4-chotomy is more important than the 
> other, say in the case of inference, where arguably the truth-perservative 
> versus truth-nonpreservative is a more important distinction, more like a 
> chasm, than is the distinction between falsity-preservative and 
> falsity-nonpreservative, but I'd still want to know about that the four-way 
> distinction because its relevance should not be presumptively precluded, 
> especially in a Tegmarkian four-level Multiverse. For me there it's partly a 
> matter of some non-maximal degree of sur!
>  eness on my part, and partly a matter of my motivation; I take an interest 
> in patterns of four-way logical distinctions, though I do wander from that 
> interest in an interesting place like this.
> Best, Ben Udell

*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                                    0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

Attachment: pgpaS90ro8O9U.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to