Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that
idea I wonder?
There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that
exists by definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is
ACTUAL. It's existence falsifies all others. Of course you can imagine
other possible worlds but they aren't REALLY possible because they don't
You are improperly applying the logic of day to day things to reality as a
whole. It is not properly applicable. See my new topic on "Why our Fine
Tuning" for a detailed explanation of why the logic of day to day things as
expressed in linguistic syntax misleads when one attempts to apply it to
the universe as a whole.
When you understand that it is clear that a TOE doesn't have to explain why
other possibilities DON'T exist, it only has to explain why what does exist
is what ACTUALLY exists.
On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:05:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> On 1/13/2014 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesus Brent don't you understand basic English syntax and logic, or are
> you being purposefully dense?
> I never said "there is only one POSSIBLE world",
> You wrote below, "No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds." We're pretty
> sure there's one possible world - since we're in it. So either there's
> just one possible world (this one). Or there is more than one possible
> world. So which is it? You're the one contradicting yourself here.
> I clearly stated there is only one ACTUAL world and many actual
> simulations of that world in the minds of biological organisms. I even put
> the words POSSIBLE and ACTUAL in caps to make it easy to understand.
> Pay attention to your own logic. Stating there is only one actual world is
> compatible with that being the only possible world, or one world actualized
> out of many possible - hence my question. I now take that you think there
> are more possible worlds than the actual one we experience. Is that how you
> allow for quantum randomness: one possible world is realized from the
> random ensemble that QM predicts?
> Of course that doesn't completely falsify pink rabbits or any other kind
> of alternate realty but there is no evidence for those things. Now you are
> criticizing my theory because it doesn't explain things for which there is
> no evidence whatsoever? Get real!
> Where did I criticize your theory (except the relativity part)? I just
> asked questions.
> I'll let you spend your time constructing theories to explain what there
> is no evidence for if you like. I have better things to do...
> But when there are multiple possible worlds but only one actual world,
> then a theory of everything needs to explain why only the one is actual.
> Maybe that's beyond your theory, which is OK; not every theory has to be a
> theory of everything.
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:16:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> On 1/13/2014 6:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds.
>> So there is only one possible world. That would seem to imply the world
>> is determinstic. How do you account for quantum randomness? Are you
>> assuming hidden variables or hyperdeterminism?
>> There are many ACTUAL simulations of a single computational reality,
>> and all of those simulations are not arbitrary sci fi scenarios but solidly
>> based in the actual logic of reality at least in their essentials. Because
>> these are real world views of real biological organisms. They have to be
>> accurate in their essentials for the organisms to exist and function.
>> Yes that's all very well. We and other beings model the world in our
>> minds. And (we hope) those models are accurate. But that does not
>> logically entail that there cannot be other worlds with different physics
>> and different beings making mental models of it. Are you just asserting it
>> as a contingent fact, or do you have some argument that only this world
>> with its physics is possible?
>> I find it difficult to understand how you would think I believe in
>> "many possible worlds with alternative physics, etc." when I've
>> consistently argued just the opposite.
>> So far as I can tell you've never argued that this is the only possible
>> world. You've just asserted that it is real and everything real is in it.
>> That doesn't logically entail that no other "real" worlds are possible.
>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2014 4:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>> > Terren,
>>> > No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to
>>> consider not just
>>> > what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation but
>>> the whole context of
>>> > the simulation. I'll try again. Even if a simulated world is entirely
>>> convincing in the
>>> > short term it still MUST exist in the actual reality, and if it is not
>>> in accordance
>>> > with the actual logic of that actual reality it will quickly or
>>> eventually fail. The
>>> > real being must exist somewhere else and be receiving nutrients etc.
>>> in a real actual
>>> > reality with which it is in logical synch with.
>>> So you're saying that although there are many possible world's
>>> (alternative physics, etc)
>>> that can exist in simulations, only one of these is real. Which raises
>>> the question, why
>>> this one?
>>> > Thus you can't have just any old arbitrary fake simulation running or
>>> the simulated
>>> > being will quickly die in the real actual reality in which it MUST
>>> have an actual
>>> > existence. So there will always be a way to tell if the reality you
>>> live in is simulated
>>> > or not. If you actually exist then at least the basics must be in
>>> accord with actual
>>> > reality.
>>> > Of course, as you suggest, there are many non-essential ways a
>>> simulation can be wrong
>>> > and the subject still function, but no essential ones. No matter how
>>> simulated an
>>> > internal reality is it still must exist in a real actual reality and
>>> this will always
>>> > eventually give a false simulation away when it is tested against
>>> actual reality by the
>>> > test of whether it is consistent with the continued existence and
>>> functioning of the
>>> > subject.
>>> > Edgar
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 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
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.