Dear Wei Dai,
thanks for the reply. I think I joined the list before such questionnaire
was presented, so I did not introduce myself. Some aspects of mine, however,
could be deciphered from my more than a decade long participation.
Brief remarks to the questions in question:
I deny 'random' - the cop-out for things we cannot order as to its
origination. Random occurrences would result in parallel 'natures' what is
possible - only we do not know about such, so I disregard it.
As I wrote in the past my 'narrative' about the world allows unlimited # of
universes in a wide variety of qualia. And I dislike
thought/fantasy-theories to substitute for our ignorance.
Further below: remarks to some of the invitational questions:
I hold the 'possible' universes as including the 'impossible' ones, since
the possibility is in out present human terms - not binding to the
Distribution of the universe? same position to the above: human figment.
I touched random above. Since this universe introduced 'time' as an agent
for coordinating the internal view we have (space is the other one) our view
covers what we call 'past' in more detail than what we call 'future' so
terms of 'my' random concept are stronger for the latter.
Observer I call anything that absorbs information (and so: unlimited)
Our 'dictum' of past-future is human figment.
I am no physicist and my thoughts may seem unorthodox to physicists.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From the questionnaire:
> >Why do we believe that both the past and the future are not
> >completely random, but the future is more random than the past?
> I didn't know we believed that *grin*.
> Zen_Ved wrote:
> > Wei Dai:
> >> I'm not sure what questionnaire Zen_Ved is referring to, but maybe it's
> >> paragraph from the mailing list invitation:
> >> Because this mailing list attracts people from many different academic
> >> fields, and many posts have high technical content, it is suggested that
> >> after joining, you post a message to the mailing list with the subject
> >> "JOINING post". In this post, please give a brief biography of yourself
> >> tell us your intellectual backgrounds. What fields are you familiar
> >> what relevant books/papers have you read, etc.? This way, if you don't
> >> understand someone's post, you can look up his JOINING post in the
> >> and figure out what background he is assuming.
> >> I copied this idea from the SL4 mailing list, I think.
> >> --------------------------------------------------
> >> From: "John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 8:49 AM
> > ____________
> > As to "questionnaire Zen_Ved ", see
> > http://www.weidai.com/everything.html
> > Wei Dai's "everything'' mailing list
> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998:
> > _____________
> > .........
> > You are invited to join a mailing list for discussion of the idea that
> > all possible universes exist. Some possible topics of discussion might
> > include:
> > - What is the set of all possible universes?
> > - What is a reasonable prior/posterior distribution for the universe
> > that I am in?
> > - Why do we believe that both the past and the future are not
> > completely random, but the future is more random than the past?
> > - Before observing anything about the universe, should we expect it to
> > have (infinitely?) many observers?
> > - How can we/should we predict the future and postdict the past?
> > _______________
> > Sorry, cheers.
> > >
> Günther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/
> Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> Research Proposal:
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