On 23 Jul 2014, at 01:05, LizR wrote:
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... :-)
We were in Tune on this, implicitly at least, when ha talk about QM
and Everett MW.
I think we know now that Tegmark is not in tune with himself, after he
wrote his weird paper on consciousness. But we know also that he does
not take into account comp and the FPI into account, so miss that he
has to extends Everett's embedding of the physicist in physics by the
embedding of the mathematician in mathematics, and this in the same
way, which leads to the measure problem.
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.
Poetically, but it is very naive. An expression like "mathematical
reality" is something to be big to make sense. Mathematical logicians
know that well. Then with comp the idea that there is more than
elementary arithmetic is absolutely undecidable, if only by the hole
dream argument.
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.
I think we are in agreement, OK.
Bruno
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
