Well to give the writer the benefit of the doubt, a way to modify the
statement's wording might be:
In modern cosmology, a multiverse is defined to be a collection of all
physical universes consistent with the laws of physics, whatever those
That leaves room for physics revising itself over the next 1,000 years.
I'm interested to see how this is received by physicists.
I read it and it's not nearly as technical as I thought it would be
after reading the abstract. This paper seems to heavily rest on
Tegmark's ME=PE hypothesis in that non-isomorphic models give rise to
different universes is a really abstract thing to say about physics; I
would surmise a physicist who rejects ME=PE would totally dismiss this
I know almost nothing of physics so it might not matter that I'm willing
to accept the ME=PE hypothesis.
John Mikes wrote:
> I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence:
> /"In modern cosmology, a /
> /multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical
> that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many
> 'impossibilities' in the sense of a mindset of 1000 years ago and I
> assume does NOT include lots of 'possibles' in the scientific(?)
> mindset 1000 years hence.
> I find the position a 'present-day restricted' reductionist approach
> adjusted into our 2009(or earlier?) cognitive inventory of physics.
> In rigorous science I could not do better, but is it a position you
> would really deem a "a very interesting read"?
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Brian Tenneson <tenn...@gmail.com
> <mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> If it lives up to its abstract, it will be a very interesting read.
> ronaldheld wrote:
> > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.0216v1.pdf
> > comments?
> > >
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at