Ronald, There is also a thread with some other good justifications for the belief in everything:
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/6c77322d47582932/16f35cf51ed74d1c?lnk=gst&q=wei+dai#16f35cf51ed74d1c Jason On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron, > > I think the most convincing approach is to start with how unlikely a > universe with life is. I like how Loenard Susskind explains it here: > > > http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Is-the-Universe-Fine-Tuned-for-Life-and-Mind-Leonard-Susskind-/431 > > There are a few other approaches, such as how mathematical the universes > is. "The unreasonable effectiveness of math", as well as the many 10^500 or > perhaps infinite number of solutions to string theory, and also the > informational simplicity of all possible structures existing. You can liken > that simplicity it to a block of stone before it is sculpted. All possible > sculptures exist within that block of stone, but only by adding information > through chiseling, can one restrict from the infinite possibilities down to > one structure. Therefore if the lack of any information leaves open all > possibility. (as in Russell Standish's theory of nothing) If there is no > force or entity that comes along to carve from all possible existence a > single existence, then all possible structures continue to exist. > > I think the fine tuning argument is the strongest, if you can demonstrate > that the chances of a universe having the right laws to support evolving > life is less than 1 in a billion for example, then the likelihood of a huge > or infinite number of universes existing is overwhelming. > > Jason > > > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:05 PM, ronaldheld <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jason(and any others) >> Both. Level IV Universe is hard to explain even if real. Bruno's >> reality is equally hard to convincing present. >> Ronald >> >> On Nov 26, 12:02 am, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > Jason: >> > > I see what you are saying up at our level of understanding, I do not >> > > know how to present that in a technically convincing matter. >> > > Ronald >> > >> > Which message in particular do you think is difficult to >> > present convincingly? Tegmark's ideas that everything is real, or the >> > suggestion that computer simulation might be a legitimate tool for >> > exploration? >> > >> > Jason >> >> -- >> 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]<everything-list%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> > -- 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.
