On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:58:15 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
> 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. 

What you're saying seems circular to me. 'A multiverse needs universes 
because we know that beings observe the universe.'

>From my view, with a universe composed only of beings who not only observe 
but participate in the universe, the idea of a multiverse is superfluous.

> > 
> > > 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. 

Your saying that something has been rebutted isn't really information that 
I can do anything with. I'm sure from your perspective that seems to be the 
case, but even though we live in the same universe, I am not persuaded by 
your assurance because I already know that you see the theory in a positive 

> 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. 

Why does it require any knowledge? A theory that suggests that quintillions 
of universes must be generated by every mouse turd could not violate 
Occam's razor any more if it tried. The fact that the Emperor's Clothes 
require special glasses to see doesn't inspire any confidence in me. Again 
- my perspective is different from yours, yet we are talking about the same 

> > 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. 

My objection is that it is a hypocritical appeal to superfluous 
complication of concrete reality for the purpose of avoiding complication 
in abstract mathematical theory.

> 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"). 

If you have a multiverse, what is the point of having beings who experience 
an illusion of choice? All choices would be inevitable.


> Cheers 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 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 
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