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 <jasonre...@gmail.com> 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 <ronaldh...@gmail.com> 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 <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld <ronaldh...@gmail.com>
>> 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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> 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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to