On 11/26/2017 9:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room; introducing Many Worlds creates hugely more complications than it purports to do away with; multiple, indeed infinite observers with the same memories and life histories for example. Give me a break. AG What about a single, infinite world in which everything is duplicated to an arbitrary level of detail, including the Earth and its inhabitants, an infinite number of times? Is the bizarreness of this idea an argument for a finite world, ending perhaps at the limit of what we can see?That conclusion for the Level I multiverse depends on a particular assumption about the initial probability distribution. Can you justify that assumption?The assumption is the Cosmological Principle, that the part of the universe that we can see is typical of the rest of the universe. Maybe it's false; but my question is, is the strangeness of a Level I multiverse an *argument* for its falseness?
A multiverse is not a strange hypothesis. If the universe arose from some physical process, then it is natural to suppose that same process could operate to produce multiple universes. This is true even for supernatural creation: even if a god or gods created the universe they might very well create many.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
