Wei Dai wrote:
> Jason wrote:
>> I have seen two main justifications on this list for the everything
>> ensemble, the first comes from information theory which says the
>> information content of everything is zero (or close to zero).  The
>> other is mathematicalism/arithmatical realism which suggests
>> mathematical truth exists independandly of everything else and is the
>> basis for everything.
>> My question to the everything list is: which explaination do you
>> prefer and why?  Are these two accounts compatible, incompatible, or
>> complimentary?  Additionally, if you subscribe to or know of other
>> justifications I would be interesting in hearing it.
> These two justifications are about equally attractive to me. I also have a 
> couple of other justifications.
> Aesthetic: If anything doesn't exist, it's non-existence would constitute an 
> element of arbitrariness, given that anything exists at all. We shouldn't 
> accept arbitrariness unless there's a good reason for it, and there doesn't 
> seem to be one.

It would be a peculiar kind of arbitrariness that had a good reason for it. :-)

But what constitutes a "good reason"?  Does a good reason have to show that the 
result is inevitable?  or merely probable?

> Pragmatic: We have to accept that there is at least a non-zero probability 
> that all possible universes exist. 

This seems to be a tautology: P>0 <=> "possible".  The question is what is 
possible and in what sense of "possible".  Certainly many things are logically 
possible: flying pigs, Santa Claus, and victory in Iraq.  But if we assign a 
non-zero probability to one of theses we are just quantifying the uncertainty 
of our knowledge.

Brent Meeker

>Unless there is reason to believe that 
> the probability is so small as to be negligible (and I don't see such a 
> reason), we will need to consider the everything ensemble when making 
> predictions and decisions. Given that, why not believe that the probability 
> is one? The probabilities for all other possible collections of universes 
> can be "folded" into the measure over the everything ensemble in such a way 
> that all of the predictions and decisions come out the same way as before. 
> > 

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

Reply via email to