Re: Let There Be Something
Hi, yes it sounds like blind faith, but I can't see either any rationnality in the faith that not everything exists... If not everything exists then the reality is more absurd... How a justification for only a small part of possibilities (and only this one) could be found ? Quentin Le Vendredi 28 Octobre 2005 18:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I guess I'll break the symmetry of relative silence on this list lately. I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of nothing. And I see the belief that our universe appeared out of nothing as just that, a belief. In fact, I believe that. But I don't see how it makes one iota more rational, scientific sense to try to explain it with a Plenitude and the Anthropic Principle. It's like a probability argument that poses the existence of as much unobservable stuff out there as we need, along with the well-behaved unobservable probability distribution we need, in order to give us a fuzzy feeling in terms of probability as we know it in our comfortable immediate surroundings. Sounds like blind faith to me.
Re: Let There Be Something
If we are leaving all rationality aside, then how can be talk about relative absurdity and justification? Tom Caylor -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:59:10 +0200 Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Hi, yes it sounds like blind faith, but I can't see either any rationnality in the faith that not everything exists... If not everything exists then the reality is more absurd... How a justification for only a small part of possibilities (and only this one) could be found ? Quentin Le Vendredi 28 Octobre 2005 18:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I guess I'll break the symmetry of relative silence on this list lately. I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of nothing. And I see the belief that our universe appeared out of nothing as just that, a belief. In fact, I believe that. But I don't see how it makes one iota more rational, scientific sense to try to explain it with a Plenitude and the Anthropic Principle. It's like a probability argument that poses the existence of as much unobservable stuff out there as we need, along with the well-behaved unobservable probability distribution we need, in order to give us a fuzzy feeling in terms of probability as we know it in our comfortable immediate surroundings. Sounds like blind faith to me.
Re: Let There Be Something
Why do you think (my interpretation of my understanding of what you're saying) that rationality is not just a type of belief ? I see rationality as the belief that what we are experiencing could be understand/known by us, that somehow here and now could be explained in acceptable term. In any cases, I just see absurdity for what is reality (don't know if it has to be rational), but in the not everything case, I see it as much more absurd. In the everything case, I'm because I must be by definition... And you are too for the same reason. In the other case you just get absurd justification for absurdity ;D Quentin Le Vendredi 28 Octobre 2005 21:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : If we are leaving all rationality aside, then how can be talk about relative absurdity and justification? Tom Caylor -Original Message- From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:59:10 +0200 Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Hi, yes it sounds like blind faith, but I can't see either any rationnality in the faith that not everything exists... If not everything exists then the reality is more absurd... How a justification for only a small part of possibilities (and only this one) could be found ? Quentin Le Vendredi 28 Octobre 2005 18:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I guess I'll break the symmetry of relative silence on this list lately. I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of nothing. And I see the belief that our universe appeared out of nothing as just that, a belief. In fact, I believe that. But I don't see how it makes one iota more rational, scientific sense to try to explain it with a Plenitude and the Anthropic Principle. It's like a probability argument that poses the existence of as much unobservable stuff out there as we need, along with the well-behaved unobservable probability distribution we need, in order to give us a fuzzy feeling in terms of probability as we know it in our comfortable immediate surroundings. Sounds like blind faith to me.
Fwd: Let There Be Something
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess I'll break the symmetry of relative silence on this list lately. I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of nothing. And I see the belief that our universe appeared out of nothing as just that, a belief. In fact, I believe that. But I don't see how it makes one iota more rational, scientific sense to try to explain it with a Plenitude and the Anthropic Principle. It's like a probability argument that poses the existence of as much unobservable stuff out there as we need, along with the well-behaved unobservable probability distribution we need, in order to give us a fuzzy feeling in terms of probability as we know it in our comfortable immediate surroundings. Sounds like blind faith to me. Brent wrote: Why would you suppose there was once nothing from which something came? Could you explain when and where there was nothing? That there is something is certainly not a matter of faith, it's straightforward observation. That there could have been nothing sounds like completely unsupported speculation to me. Brent Meeker What is there? Everything! So what isn't there? Nothing! --- Norm Levitt, after Quine I'm not trying to rationally justify the belief of something coming out of nothing. I'm saying that a selection principle causing something to come out of the zero-information multiverse is equivalent to that belief, or at least equally unjustifiable. Tom Caylor
Re: Let There Be Something
Tom Caylor writes: I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of nothing. I would suggest that the multiverse concept is better thought of in somewhat different terms. It's goal is not really to explain where the universe comes from. (In fact, that question does not even make sense to me.) Rather, what it explains better than many other theories is why the universe looks the way it does. Why is the universe like THIS rather than like THAT? Why are the physical constants what they are? Why are there three dimensions rather than two or four? These are hard questions for any physical theory. Multiverse theories generally sidestep these issues by proposing that all universes exist. Then they explain why we see what we do by invoking anthropic reasoning, that we would only see universes that are conducive to life. Does this really not explain anything? I would say that it explains that there are things that don't need to be explained. Or at least, they should be explained in very different terms. It is hard to say why the universe must be three dimensional. What is it about other dimensionalities that would make them impossible? That doesn't make sense. But Tegmark shows reasons why even if universes with other dimensionalities exist, they are unlikely to have life. The physics just isn't as conducive to living things as in our universe. That's a very different kind of argument than you get with a single universe model. Anthropic reasoning is only explanatory if you assume the actual existence of an ensemble of universes, as multiverse models do. The multiverse therefore elevates anthropic reasoning from something of a tautology, a form of circular reasoning, up to an actual explanatory principle that has real value in helping us understand why the world is as we see it. In time, I hope we will see complexity theory elevated in a similar way, as Russell Standish discusses in his Why Occam's Razor paper. Ideally we will be able to get evidence some day that the physical laws of our own universe are about as simple as you can have and still expect life to form and evolve. In conjunction with acceptance of generalized Occam's Razor, we will have a very good explanation of the universe we see. Hal Finney
Re: Let There Be Something
If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be played in the future, over and over again. How strange and pointless it all seems. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:57 PM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Tom Caylor writes: I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of nothing. I would suggest that the multiverse concept is better thought of in somewhat different terms. It's goal is not really to explain where the universe comes from. (In fact, that question does not even make sense to me.) Rather, what it explains better than many other theories is why the universe looks the way it does. Why is the universe like THIS rather than like THAT? Why are the physical constants what they are? Why are there three dimensions rather than two or four? These are hard questions for any physical theory. Multiverse theories generally sidestep these issues by proposing that all universes exist. Then they explain why we see what we do by invoking anthropic reasoning, that we would only see universes that are conducive to life. Does this really not explain anything? I would say that it explains that there are things that don't need to be explained. Or at least, they should be explained in very different terms. It is hard to say why the universe must be three dimensional. What is it about other dimensionalities that would make them impossible? That doesn't make sense. But Tegmark shows reasons why even if universes with other dimensionalities exist, they are unlikely to have life. The physics just isn't as conducive to living things as in our universe. That's a very different kind of argument than you get with a single universe model. Anthropic reasoning is only explanatory if you assume the actual existence of an ensemble of universes, as multiverse models do. The multiverse therefore elevates anthropic reasoning from something of a tautology, a form of circular reasoning, up to an actual explanatory principle that has real value in helping us understand why the world is as we see it. In time, I hope we will see complexity theory elevated in a similar way, as Russell Standish discusses in his Why Occam's Razor paper. Ideally we will be able to get evidence some day that the physical laws of our own universe are about as simple as you can have and still expect life to form and evolve. In conjunction with acceptance of generalized Occam's Razor, we will have a very good explanation of the universe we see. Hal Finney
Re: Let There Be Something
My approach is that there is [exists] a list of possible features of objects and ideas. This list is [at least] countably infinite. Universes are described by the various one list to two sub list ways of dividing this list. the number of such divisions is uncountably infinite [a power set]. Nothing and and my All are one of these divisions. If any division has a degree of reality this division does. Since the Nothing and the All are a paired sub list there is no rationale for assigning either Nothing or the All a higher degree of reality than the other. The Nothing suffers incompleteness and the All suffers inconsistency. The result as explained in my posts is a fleeting and random assignment of a lower degree of reality to all the other possible divisions. The only assumption I can see is of the existence of a countably infinite and divisible list of possibilities. I do not see how such an assumption can be challenged. Universes do not arise out of nothing but rather out of the mere possibility of nothing. Hal
Re: Let There Be Something
Hal Finney wrote: Anthropic reasoning is only explanatory if you assume the actual existence of an ensemble of universes, as multiverse models do. The multiverse therefore elevates anthropic reasoning from something of a tautology, a form of circular reasoning, up to an actual explanatory principle that has real value in helping us understand why the world is as we see it. Very good Hal. I agree with you. George
