Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 19:25, 1Z a écrit : > > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Le Mardi 24 Octobre 2006 18:29, 1Z a écrit : > > > > I've never seen an HP universe. Yet they *must* exist in a mathematical > > > > reality, because there are no random gaps in Platonia. Since all > > > > mathematical > > > > structures are exemplified, the structure corresponging to (me up till > > > > 1 second ago) > > > > + (purple dragons) must exist. If there is nothing > > > > mathematical to keep out of HP universe, the fact that I have never > > > > seen one is > > > > evidence against a mathematical multiverse. > > > > > > I'd say it is evidence that you're not currently in an HP universe. > > > Considering HP universes have low measure (even in mathematical only MWI > > > as COMP), not being in one is not surprising. > > > > What measure they have depends on the flavour of MW. In a purely > > mathematical MW, each configuration of matter is exemplified once. > > Why is it so ? I'd say at first glance that every configuration of matter is > exemplified an infinity of time. Like I can see a video in 320x240, 640x480, > 1024x768, xxxxx, 100000x100000... each time it's the same "footage" but each > version differ with the "accessible" information content of the scene.
But what you call "accessible information" is the actual , objective configuration. We call them the "same footage", but that is a human-centric definition of the "same". > So for > a specified level of information I could agree that there is only one > configuration... but there should exists in a mathematical MW an infinity of > level. > > > (Barbour's theory is close to this, but he also has "mists", quantum > > probability measures, which are not apriori necessary). > > > > > And if you were in one or noticed > > > weird events you wouldn't writing this... Absence of proof is not proof > > > of absence. > > > > So there *are* unicorns? > > No, just that you can't conclude that unicorn don't exists only because you've > never seen one... But that is the only reason anyone has to conclude that they don't exist. If it isn't a good reason, therefore, they do exist. > You could conclude with an high certainty that unicorn > don't exist with more evidences... Have you such evidences ? Absence of evidence is good reason. It just isn't logically certain. > beside that > you've never met Harry Potter ? ;-D > Quentin Anciaux --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---