On 7/9/07, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 1:39 am, "Mohsen Ravanbakhsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> > While I was reading the previous discussion; "justifying theory of
> > everything" , I thought of my recent problem with still imperfection of
> > TOE. The problem is:
> > Multiverse by itself is a choice, and every choice by it's nature has
> > bias and information.
> > I could just consider two mathematical universes without any bias; the
> > is nothing or mathematical point. The second one is a whole, I mean a
> > space in infinite dimensions(just extending the perfect circle of Plato
> > remove it's bias in radius and dimension)
> > Any other universe should contain a choice, including the collection of
> > possible universes! Why?
> > Consider ME! Why 'I' am in this special world and not the other one? You
> > might claim that I'm in the other ones as well. But I would still
> > 'Why 'I' am in this special universe and not the other?'. I hope you get
> > point.
> Would you know the difference if you were in all other universes at
> once? What about existing in every point of time that spans your
> life, would you not still have the illusion of only existing in the
No, I wouldn't but that doesn't solve this problem! You may say, OK you are
existing in all other universes, and I still would answer the same way: as
far as 'I' am here, there has been a bias; I mean why 'I' am not the other
one in the other universe. You see my point?
> I wanted to conclude from this, even if there is a multiverse there's an
> > information content for whole universe, and that might need another
> >From my understanding of Theory of Nothing, the set of all
> descriptions for every possible universe requires zero bits of
> information to describe when taken as a whole. However with observers
> there is discrimination within this set of descriptions, observers
> determine which are perceived as real and due to this discrimination
> individual universes requiring massive amounts of information to
> describe emerge from a set that takes nothing to describe. The large
> amount of information required to describe what we observe is due to
> fact that what is observed in any particular observer moment is
> finite, therefore requiring some information to define its bounds.
I believe this trick wont work neither. Because here I, as Tegmark puts it,
can have the same argument from the BIRD(3rd person) view. I as the BIRD
know that every observer has a distinct self, because he/she can ask why
he/she is some where and not some other where, while some other copies of
him/her really are in those other wheres!
So still there's a discrimination.
I hope I have understood that part correctly; if not Russell can
> correct me.
I guess my argument shows as far as there's consciousness zero information
for the whole universe is impossible.
Some one HELP!
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