> But this begs the question "What is EVERYTHING?"

I would say the class of all mathematical models which are not
self-contradictory constitutes "everything".  I'd even go so far as to
suggest that's exactly what existence is, in a literal sense: a lack
of mathematical contradiction.  All things that are consistent exist
and all things that exist are consistent.

This is broader than the MW interpretation which imposes additional
tacit restrictions: that everything which /is constructable/ solely by
/quantum perturbations/ occurring /since the Big Bang/ must exist.

It also raises the question about whether we can assume there is a
universe where I wore a red sweater instead of a blue one today.  I
would certainly guess that the probability of this happening is
nonzero, but I have no way of confirming that there exists a
particular model containing this state which is non-contradictory.
Certainly the model couldn't be identical to the current universe I'm
in, because I don't own a red sweater, and I can't readily envision a
situation where quantum perturbations would make me wake up early
enough to go purchase one.

So I suspect that "everything" has lots of odd holes in it, but
perhaps quantum effects smooth them out so well that we can assume
nearly any conceivable change to our universe has non-contradictory
representatives.  I'd prefer not to assume that, even if I believe (as
I do) that worlds which are not constructable from out Big Bang exist.

Certainly there are worlds out there where I'm deluded into thinking
that I have on a red sweater, though.  ;)


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