Brent, If as you say "in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times" then there can be only one multiverse, which negates a number of cosmology theories like Linde's Chaotic Inflation Cosmology. But then the potential he used provides the best fit to BICEP2 gravitational-wave data. Perhaps it is the multiverse that is falsified? Richard
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/27/2014 12:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014-03-27 5:39 GMT+01:00 meekerdb <[email protected]>: > >> On 3/26/2014 9:03 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 27 March 2014 16:33, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for "triple >>> or bust" vs "maintain what we've got" from evolutionary biology. >>> >> >> Well OK, but what I've read (and indeed observed and experienced >> throughout my life) indicates that people, and most animals who care for >> their young, employ strategies which could (roughly) be described as >> male-risky, female-play-it-safe (or at least safer). E.g. it's the male >> grasshoppers who keep me awake with their racket, the male birds who wake >> me in the morning with THEIR racket, peacocks with the big showy tails, >> male bower birds who expend the energy to make the bowers - all males >> employing (relatively) risky strategies to attract females. (Because, you >> see, we're just naturally fabulous and you guys have to make the running. >> Sorry!) >> >> >>> Kent's idea would be to look around and see whether people were >>> overwhelmingly type A or type B. If MWI is true they should be type B, if >>> false type A. >>> >> >> Yes, I realise what he was saying. I don't think it makes much sense, >> because it would require people to believe in the existence of a multiverse >> before they could formulate a reproductive strategy involving that >> knowledge, and the idea of a multiverse has only existed for about 50 >> years. >> >> >> Not "believe in", just believe MWI is possibly true. But they wouldn't >> actually have to have any opinion; that's just a way to explain it. >> Presumably evolution would have already made the choice and we'd all be >> overwhelmingly either A type or B type, whether we knew it or not. The >> problem would be finding out which we are if it's just in our genes and not >> necessarily consciously available. >> >> I'd say more of problem for the test is that the aren't really two >> choices which are passed on genetically. There's really nothing to limit >> one to just replacement even if there's only one universe. >> >> >> Otherwise, I'd expect people to act as though they are in a single >> universe, regardless of whether that is so, because that's how things >> appear to be. I'd expect genes to exhibit a similar strategy - they aren't >> (can't be) "interested" in what happens in a parallel world which can't >> communicate with the one they're in. >> >> >>> There shouldn't be any split along gender line. >>> >> >> Well there is, at least in my experience (and in various books, articles, >> nature documentaries and so on that I've come across). Indeed, apart from a >> few die-hard feminists I don't know of anyone who still adheres to the >> notion that people are "blank slates" and that gender roles are purely >> assigned by culture (humans exhibit sexual dimorphism, and brain scans >> indicate that it doesn't magically stop at our necks. Plus, why would >> blank-slatism only be true of us, but not the rest of the >> animal/fish/insect kingdom where it - often blatantly - isn't the case?) >> >> Anyway, that's why I don't think one can sensibly analyse an entire >> species' reproductive strategy to see if it was A or B (or something else), >> because reproductive strategies tend to be gender specific. It seems like a >> daft idea - maybe it's a guy thing? ;-) >> >> >> I don't understand your reasoning. Sure guys are less risk averse. But >> A vs B is pure win-or-lose depending on whether MWI is true or not. If MWI >> is true then strategy B is the winner no matter whether you're male or >> female...and not by a little bit or just probabilistically, but >> exponentially, overwhelmingly better. If MWI is false and there's just one >> universe then B is an absolute, zero survivors loser. >> >> > The thing is even if MWI is true or not... strategy A or B are simply > "idea" with no referent in the reality (even as possibility)... the 0.5 > probability of going extinct at the next gen simply refer to nothing real > in our reality, same thing for the "steady" reproduction... so I can't see > how an idea pulled from a hat could possibly "test" anything... > > > I agree. I just thought it was an interesting idea that 'natural > selection' might act differently in multiverse than a universe. The > example made up by Kent seems highly unrealistic - but then people keep > saying that in the multiverse everything happens and infinitely many times. > > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
