On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:23:55PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> 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: 
> > > 
> > > 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.'

A multiverse that didn't have universes wouldn't be a multiverse. A
soccer team that didn't have soccer players wouldn't be a soccer
team. Sheesh!

> >
> > 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 
> light.

You are showing your ignorance here. Read chapter 2 of my book,
understand it, _then_ come back with your objections. As I said, this
is everything list 101. If you just stick your fingers in your ears
and sing "la la la", you will not be persuaded of anything.

> > 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. 

Because, quite simply, it doesn't! This is a gross, gross
misunderstanding of Occam's razor. Just because it is commonly held,
does not make it any more right.

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 
> universe.

This is not a question of perspective.

> >
> > 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.

This statement is based on (unfortunately widely held) misconception,
as mentioned above. As a consequence, it is a load of baloney.

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

An illusion seems to be good enough for some people. For me, the term is
misleading, as the "illusion" is just as real as the computer in front
of me, and the table it sits on. You pays your money and takes your choices.


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