On 22 July 2014 23:19, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 22 Jul 2014, at 11:14, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > I agree that it does not make any sense. > But complain to David Deusch who introduced the multiverse within the > universe. > We now have two scientific definitions of multiverse and it is very > confusing. > Richard > > Well Tegmark made an interesting attempt to classify different notions of > "many universe", although it does not mention the MV (strings > landscape---or does he?) >
I think his level 2 or maybe 3 is post-inflationary bubbles which I believe are equivalent to the string landscape. > , and miss the comp many dreams. Normally all many-things should emerge > from the many dreams if comp is true. > Well we know you and Tegmark aren't yet in tune regarding consciousness... :-) > > The string landscape MV (thanks to Liz for the precision) is different but > not incompatible with Everett MW, although this should lead to > multi-multiverses. > Other terms don't quite seem to work. Metaverse, Omniverse, Multiplicity ... I quite like the Uberverse, which as far as I know I just made up, but some may disagree. I think Max T's level 4 multiverse is sometimes called Platonia. > > If someone can sum up the relations between SUSY, Higgs, and the string > landscape, I would perhaps be able to say more. If not I put the video and > references on my already long videos and references list, and might, or > not, comment later. it is a difficult subject. > > I tried to ... to some extent ... in my last post. -- 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/d/optout.
