On 10/3/2011 8:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Let me try to be sure that I understand this comment. When you write: "they will all
see the same laws" are you referring to those invariant quantities and
relations/functions with respect to transformations of reference frames/coordinate
systems (which has become the de facto definition of physical laws) or are you referring
to our collective human idea of physical laws?
Why does it seem to me that you assume that the physical laws that we observe are
the only possible ones? To badly echo Leibniz: How these and not some others? It seems
to me that we observe exactly the physical laws that are consistent with our existence
as observers within this universe, a universe where we can communicate representations
of the contents of our 1p to each other. Communication requires a plurality of possible
1p for each and every separate observer in one universe to act as the template from
which signal is distinguished from noise, plurality is insufficient to communications
between observers. One needs something like the Hennessy-Milner property
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hennessy-milner+property&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart>
for a coherent notion of communication.
There seems to be no a priori reason why we do not experience a universe that
contains only a single conscious entity or a universe with completely different laws
along with completely different physicality for the observers wherein. IMHO, There is
something to the self-selection that Nick Bostrom tedand others have writen about that
needs to be included in this discussion in addition to the contraints that
communications between many separate entities generates.
The conservation laws come from the requirement that we want our laws to be the same for
everyone at every time and place. This is our idea of "laws". I'm sure you're familiar
with Noether's theorem and how she showed that conservation of moment comes from the
requirement of invariance under spatial shifts, etc. My friend Vic Stenger has written a
book, "The Comprehesible Cosmos", which shows how this idea extends to general relativity,
the standard model, gauge theories, etc. and provides a unified view of physics. I
recommend it.
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.
