On 22 July 2014 23:19, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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 [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.
