Hi Brent, From: meekerdb Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 12:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: MULTIVERSE HYPOTHESIS and natural laws On 5/24/2011 7:26 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: ronaldheld Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:58 AM To: Everything List Subject: MULTIVERSE HYPOTHESIS and natural laws http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.4278.pdf They mentioned Tegmark's Level IV multiverse so I thought i would post the link here. Ronald -- Hi Ronald, Nice paper! I would like to read Vic Stenger's comment on it as he has argued against the fine tuning problem. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy/FTCosmo.pdf Onward! Stephen Buy the book. Vic discusses all those purported instance of fine-tuning. However, he accepts that multiple universes would serve to explain fine-tuning; he just doesn't think they're necessary. Or looked at another way, if there are multiple universes, ones with life are not particularly rare. Brent -- [SPK] I have read the associated paper (from Vic’s website) which contains the essence of the book. I think that the Gil and Alfonseca paper (referenced above) point of that things are not as simple as Vic would like. Their modeling using cellular automata gives a reasonable approximation to empirical experimental testing of the fine tuning hypothesis within the many worlds hypothesis. They conclude that “the results presented in this paper can be considered as an inkling that the hypothesis of the multiverse, whatever its type, does not offer an adequate explanation for the peculiarities of the physical laws in our world”. The White Rabbits and measure problem are still very much alive! Onward! Stephen -- 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.
