On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:39:02AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 6:27:56 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> >
> > 1) Why a universe, given a multiverse. A universe is the internal (ie 
> > 1p) view of the multiverse. 
> >
> Why does a multiverse need an internal view? Especially since our 
> experience is that all participants in the universe already provide 1p 
> internal views of the same universe.

The only way a multiverse could not have an internal view is if
observers are flatly impossible. That not only contradicts the facts,
it would make for a totally uninteresting entity, for which it is not
even wrong to say could exist.

> > 2) Why a multiverse instead of a universe. The answer is the zero 
> > information principle + Occams razor. Multiverses are actually much 
> > simpler than universes. 
> >
> Keeping with the simplicity theme, I'll just paste something I wrote this 
> morning for a conversation on Facebook, and then for a post on my blog 
> (this way I don't need to recreate the universe just to say the same thing 
> I've already said... makes 'sense', right?):
> To me, the problem with MWI is not that it’s exotic, or that it is too 
> bold, or that it seems silly, or that it’s that it is unparsimonious, it is 
> that it is radically hypocritical. It’s one thing to throw out Occam’s 
> Razor in the service of explaining reality as it seems to us to actually 
> be, but it’s another to throw it out for the purpose of preserving Occam’s 
> Razor for mathematical purposes. MWI is like proposing that “The shortest 
> distance between two lines is the creation of a fantastic number of 
> universes.” This is only compelling if you are trying to squeeze something 
> which is not arithmetic into an arithmetic framework. 

You are already going off on a rant that makes it difficult to
interpret your objection. But to say that the multiverse fragrantly
violates Occam's razor as you seem to be is a well-rebutted furphy. To
see why does require a modicum of mathematical knowledge, but its not
rocket science. It is easily managed with the sort of mathematics
taught at high school.

> What I see clearly is that the whole of arithmetic - algebra, topology, 
> information, etc, is nothing compared to the richness of sensory coherence. 
> Mathematics is a powerful tool because it is like a sterile skeleton of 
> sense-making which can imitate anything that can be imitated (Church-Turing 
> basically formalizes this). But my conjecture formalizes the understanding 
> that awareness is defined specifically as *that which cannot be imitated or 
> substituted*. Math is useful if you are trying to make sense of a lot of 
> things, but sense isn’t useful to math in any conceivable way. Math is a 
> way of making sense, but it has no possibility of participation, so it must 
> be a character within the story of the universe rather than the universe 
> being an idea within math. *This is where MWI goes wrong. It puts an 
> infinity of carts before each other so that we won’t notice there’s no 
> horse.*

I don't understand your objection. The observer has a critical role to
play in Multiverse theories (including the MWI), just not a physical
role (which is the problem with the Heisenberg/von Neumann version of
Copenhagen). The observer can be formalised to a certain extent,
providing useful insights (eg Bruno's AUDA), but nobody has completely
replaced the observer with mathematics, and quite possibly never will
(if you're to believe Chalmers and his "hard problem").


Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
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 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