On Thursday, October 3, 2013 11:48:40 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>  On 10/3/2013 4:36 PM, Pierz wrote:
> The universe doesn't seem to be too fussed about immense and inescapable 
> redundancy.
> Of course the universe doesn't care when the immense and inescapable 
> redundancy is in our model of it.

Yet under MWI, the multiverse would have to 'care' enough to know the 
difference between unity and multiplicity. The idea of a multiverse or 
universe is also in our model of it, but since we too are made of the same 
elementary physics that everything else in the universe is made of, then 
the difference between any model we have of the universe and any modeling 
capacity that can exist in the universe could only be one of degree not of 

All models make sense because they are based on some sense that the 
universe makes. Whatever that elementary sense is cannot be a blind 
statistical exhaustion. As far as I can tell, it must be coherent, 
consistent, sensitive and creative. Once you have coherence and 
sensitivity, then you can mask it with insensitivity to generate 
multiplicity, but it might be more like perceptual fill-in on every level - 
a pseudo-multiplicity rather than a Planck level, granular realism. 
Granularity is a model generated by visual and tactile perception as far as 
I know.



> Brent

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to