On 03 Oct 2011, at 19:41, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/3/2011 8:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

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 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.

That is beautiful and rather convincing.

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.

The part of physics is interesting, but if he would take more seriously the mind-body problem, I think he would appreciated the comp new form of invariance for the physical laws: that is, that the laws of physics do not depend on the initial universal theory. It does not depend on the choice of the computation-coordinates (the phi_i).



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to