A. Wolf wrote:
>> 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.
>   

If you don't require some mathematical model of evolution of states 
determining what happens in a Markovian way (like a Schroedinger eqn for 
example) then one consistent mathematical model is just a list:... "Anna 
wore a red sweater on 6 Nov 2008", "Anna wore a blue sweater on 7 Nov 
2008", Anna wore a coat on 8 Nov 2008",...  And there can be no 
*logical* contradiction between lists.  One is as good as another.  As I 
understand it, this sort of list is what Bruno's UD generates all 
possible instances of and from them, somehow, the physical world emerges 
as those lists which satisfy some consistency criteria.  But I'm not 
clear on how these consistency criteria emerge from within the theory.

Brent

> 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.  ;)
>
> Anna
>
> >
>
>   


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to