On Sunday, November 18, 2012 4:23:14 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:12:51AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > Can you explain, in the simplest layman terms, why this argument can be 
> > thrown out? The details are over my head, but it seems to me that the 
> > argument is simply that in order to make universes separate, you would 
> need 
> > a whole other information architecture (which would also have to be 
> > information-theoretically multiplied) to create and preserve that 
> > separation. For each universe, you would need multiple universes of 
> > overhead outside of all universes. Or if that is not his argument in the 
> > paper, then consider it mine. Why does MWI not in itself require a 
> second 
> > order MW to propagate and maintain the multiplicity? If it needs no 
> > resources, then why not use the same argument for the single universe? 
> > 
> > Craig 
>
> There is no external multiplicity - only a single multiverse 


What I am asking is why would the single multiverse be any less dependent 
upon multiplicity to accomplish its infinities of preserved separations 
than a single universe does? If a universe needs a multiverse to justify 
superposition, then why doesn't a multiverse also need a meta-multiverse to 
keep track of all the possible ways of regulating the creation and 
preservation of universes? How is infinite regress avoided?

Craig
 

> (of which 
> there is a range of opinion as to what that is exactly), which has far 
> less complexity than any one of the contained universes. The 
> individual universes, or worlds, multiply within the heads of the 
> observers, and observers with it, so there is a 1-1 relationship 
> between world and observer. 
>
> There is no issue of preferred basis, as each observer has their own 
> chosen basis. Observers with incompatible bases can never communicate 
> with each other - they simply pass by each other unnoticed. Only 
> observers with compatible bases can share their realities - giving 
> rise to the "illusion" (as it were) of a single external classical 
> reality. 
>
> Hope that helps. I'd say go and read my book, but I'm not convinced I 
> found the perfect explanation of this in that book either 
> ... :(. Others may have different suggestions. 
>
>
> -- 
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpc...@hpcoders.com.au<javascript:> 
> University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0eq_ScFkbFoJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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