On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:56 AM Terren Suydam <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:35 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We have no evidence nor reason to presume that we should be in a position >> to see everything that exists. In fact, we already know that not to be the >> case. We know we can't see what lays beyond the cosmological horizon, for >> example. >> >> As to why I think there are likely many other universes with different >> laws, I have many separate reasons, and they all point in the same >> direction: >> >> 1. The trend of science has always been to humble humanity by showing us >> what exists is much larger than we assumed. (Out planet is one of many, our >> star is one of many, our galaxy is one of many, our Hubble volume is one of >> many, etc.) >> 2. It's suggested by our leading cosmological theory (eternal inflation >> is part of the standard model of cosmology, it is the default >> theory/assumption in that field of science) >> 3. It's suggested by the only theories we have that are compatible with >> QM and gravity >> 4. It explains the apparent fine tuning without resorting to intelligent >> design or fantastic luck >> 5. Multi-verse theories are often simpler than those that constrain >> possibility >> 6. It addresses the Wheeler question "Why these laws, not others" >> 7. There are many other perfectly sound and consistent equations (e.g. >> one where the gravitational constantly is a different value) why should >> this particular value for that free parameter be the only one to be >> "realized" >> 8. It's a conclusion of arithmetical realism >> >> > How do you square the multiverse concept with what Bruno has asserted in > the past - that the physics experienced by universal numbers is the same > for all of them? > > When Bruno speaks to a universal physics, he is using a far more generalized notion of physics (e.g. what is extractable from the laws of self reference). This might yield only a very basic set of constraints on physical laws, such as: - Physical laws should be relatively simple (as simple as possible to be compatible with the observer's mind tied to that physical environment) - Physical laws will be mostly computable - Physical laws will be relatively stable - Physical laws will yield at best probabilistic predictions (when considering questions below one's "substitution level") - Physical laws must permit the construction of Turing machines - Physical systems will appear to evolve in time - Physical systems will appear to be continuous and linear - Information will likely play a fundamental role - Physical universes should appear to contain a large (perhaps infinite) number of observers Basic principals like these might serve as a universal physics, but in my view many things might remain open and contingent, such as: - The mass of the electron - Whether or not there are electrons, protons or any of the familiar particles we know - The dimensionality of time and space - Conservation laws - The speed of light (if there is light) - What the fundamental "stuff" is (are they Game of Life Cells, 10-dimensional strings, etc.) There are many imaginable ways an observer's mind could be built and could arise. Each of these imaginable ways is a "physical environment" for someone, but some of them are going to be much more common than others. Jason -- 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.
