your distortion of my words may come from my mindset of a non-IndoEuropean 
mothertongue - in English. 
I wrote: 
>" building further levels on unfounded
> assumptions - no matter how fit they may be > to a theory we favor...<
you wrote:
>You imply that our theories are just a matter of "favor". <
As I understand it has a different meaning. I imply nothing. I presume we have 
a similar idea about 'scientific method': not  restricted to reductionist 
model-views, yet the 'preaching' I got about it does not rely to my text. I may 
'favor' (i.e. like better than another one)  a theory freely. An nth level of 
conclusions - based on an idea I may not approve - may be a likeable formula, I 
keep my mind free enough. IMO it does not 'fit' into MY 'scientific method', 
because the original startup was an assumption on maybe shaky grounds. I trust 
my sense of 'scientific' logic because it landed to me 38 patent-approvals. 
(=Pudding test).
"There's a difference between wishful speculation and informed extrapolation... 
The question is: what is the 'information' based on? If on a model-based 
selective (statistical?) assumption, oops: calculative explanation, and 
extrapolated into beyond-model areas, then a speculation (scientific, of 
course)may give more reliability if based on well (better?) informed 
(scientific) views. I usually do not use the 'sc' word so frequently, but it 
seems you 'favor' it. 

I still owe you a reply in the Big Bang case, I am slow.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brent Meeker 
  Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:19 PM
  Subject: Re: Quick Quantum Question.

  John Mikes wrote:
  > Chris,
  > I am with this list for a decade or so, and learned that this group 
  > accepts a negative
  > position as well, not only 'hosanna' to the 'officially (here) accepted 
  > one. So here it
  > comes:
  > In my (heretic? and personal) view
  > 1. universes in the Multiverse are not necessarily identical, indeed 
  > "all possible" (see
  > Stathis' reply to you) means IMO diversity vs identity, so I find it 
  > unfounded that "in
  > all 'other' universes the 2nd law should flourish" (indeed I consider it 
  > even here some
  > (reductionist) model-related (and restricted) deduction from our limited 
  > observational
  > skills and their 'historic' (applied math based) explanation).

  That's a good point. Of course if all possible universes eventuate with equal 
probability, the 2nd law will hold because that is just what is assumed by it - 
there are a lot more ways to age than to stay young.  But why "with equal 
probability".  Bruno's UD must produce some measure on the universes it 
generates, but it's not clear that this agrees with the physicists 
equi-probable (hence the white rabbit problem.  Incidentally why do we call it 
"the white rabbit problem"? White rabbits are quite common.  Why isn't it "the 
white crow problem"?)

  > 2. In my view of an interactive wholeness "we" exist in here (if really) 
  > - in relation to
  > the TOTAL of THIS universe - a transfer into different background 
  > (universe?) would
  > necessarily discontinue our complexity (uncuttable total 'self?') we are 
  > here.
  > What may happen 'there' (if...) is at best an assumption and I would not 
  > draw further conclusions (definitely not as accepted facts!) by  
  > building further levels on unfounded
  > assumptions - no matter how fit they may be to a theory we favor.

  You imply that our theories are just a matter of "favor".  If our theory is 
one supported by the scientific method (and like the 2nd law maybe very much 
contrary to our favor) then it is the best tool we have for speculating about 
things we cannot (yet?) test.  There's a difference between wishful speculation 
and informed extrapolation.  They may both be wrong, the latter is the way to 

  Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to