> On 21 Dec 2018, at 16:13, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:56 AM Terren Suydam <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:35 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[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).
But we get a non trivial very rich quantum logic (and quantum mathematics for the quantified extension), and by UDA they are physical laws. That is the advantage of Mechanism: it makes physics into mathematical laws. All the rest will be driven by the geographic-historical differentiating consciousness flux associated with the universal numbers in arithmetic. Physics can only speculate on the possible difference between geography and universal laws. With mechanism, we get somehow that conceptual distinction at the start. Physics is just the science of observable prediction. The metaphysics of Mechanism makes them into law, and whatever not derivable becomes contingent and variable. > > 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 But, we have to get the whole mathematics of this, and this should include the fundamental forces, the symmetrical hamiltonian, the reversibility of laws, the particles, etc. The arithmetical constraints and arithmetical realism makes physics reducible to self-reference, like quantum mechanics makes chemistry into a branch of physics “conceptually” (practically, rules of thumb are added, as we cannot solve the equations in practice). > 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.) OK. That is open problem, for the next generation. Meanwhile, mechanism can be refuted also. > 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. The observable with measure one must be the same for all universal machine. Only the histories and geographies will remain contingent. (See my other explanation of yesterday). Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
