A. Wolf wrote: >> "Capable of supporting" implies some physical laws that connect an >> environment and sapient beings. In an arbitrary list universe, the >> occurrence of sapience might be just another arbitrary entry in the list >> (like Boltzman brains). And what about the rules of inference? Do we > > This is true. What you're describing...a list of states, in a > sense...would be a teeny subset of all possible consistent universes, > though. It doesn't describe our own universe, for one example: there > is no "grand clock" that ticks down such that the universe can be > partitioned into states. :) I'd need to cover relativity to explain > why, but the universe isn't "sliceable" in the way you're suggesting > it is. > > Anna
I'm well aware of relativity. But I don't see how you can invoke it when discussing all possible, i.e. non-contradictory, universes. Neither do I see that list of states universes would be a teeny subset of all mathematically consistent universes. On the contrary, it would be very large. It would certainly be much larger than that teeny subset obeying general relativity or Newtonian physics or the standard model of QFT in Minkowski spacetime. Brent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
