[me]
Principles of World Theory say, more or less, that: [...]
[Bruno]
Very nice. Except perhaps that it is the principle of the
Old World Theory, implicit in Aristotle
and Leibniz, where all the worlds are accessible from each other.
It is formalised by the modal logic S5. [...]
I'll do my
Hi, I´m new here. Please accept this source of extra noise in your
mailbox in the hope to be useful
Federico Marulli wrote:
So we can try to reason upon some examples which has a meaning from a
physical point of view. For instance, we can think about the second
principle of thermodynamics,
Brent Meeker wrote:
Even the probability of observing a single large scale violation of the laws of probability is vanishingly small.
According to *our* laws of probability, that is.
But how can you make recourse to our laws of probability if there
are infinitely many universes which have
: Thursday, October 30, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: a possible paradox
Actually I wasn't thinking about physically impossible things happening
very rarely (QM) but only about regular physics vs probability of things
happening.
If you consider quantum mechanics you are right in an infinite universe
Federico:
The paradox consists of the fact that the theory of multiverses tells us
that there must be infinite observers who experiment other physical laws.
There is not only the possibility of being wrong, it is the model itself
which proves to be wrong. In fact it tells us that there are
Any reason this list does not have a reply-to set to the mailing list
address?
my message mistakenly sent to scerir
I think two things are being confused. First, the laws of physics, second,
the laws of probability. A gas particle follow physical rules (movement,
bumping, thermal vibrations)
Any reason this list does not have a reply-to set to the mailing list
address?
Better push the reply to all?
Btw, I wrote:
Now the question seems (to me) to be this one. What about the density
matrix of the people A in the ***world*** A, representing some knowledge
about the ***world*** B?
--
Federico Marulli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello everybody,
I read all your messages and I would like to say something about them. I
think that the concept of magic universes considered by Matt King and Hal
Finney and the demonstration that we are not in one of them is improper. If
these magic
Hi Hal,
I agree with everything you wrote about duplication...but I have to
take issue with your last point.
Hal Finney wrote:
Another interesting result of this paper concerned daughter universes.
In some models, it may be possible to trigger the formation of new
inflating regions which
arbitrarily close to perfect - and does
it make a difference?
Stathis
From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: a possible paradox
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:52:30 -0800
quicky:
does the multiverses version of existence
include perfect duplications - included
Federico:
I'm agree that informations are always subjective, but a physical or
matematical model should not be too. And perhaps the paradox I propose
is a four-order one. The problem in fact is that all the conclusions
we could think are consequence of the hypotesis of applying the
Joao Leao wrote:
Your Principles are correct but the wording is not:
you should change all your use of *possible* to 'contingent'
and qualify as 'possible' instead all the invocations of 'world'
not qualified with *actual*. This because possible/actual is
a distinction that applies to worlds
Thanks, Matt, yes it helps. It helps me see that the
math becomes problematic under the interpretations.
Arbitrary constraints tint and skew what comes out.
James
Matt King wrote:
Hello Stathis and James,
In answer to the first question, does the multiverse inlude perfect
Dear Federico,
In a mature and open 'exploring community',
especially where people of different language
backgrounds are concerned about coming together,
the responsibility for extracting meaning and
ideas falls as much on the readers as the writers.
Syntax and grammer 'perfection' are secondary
get fucked
get fucked
Well, based upon the vast vocabulary as evidenced by this incisive argument
by the poster, obviously a man of the vast intellect and insight of a George
Bush! Impressive indeed!
Cheers
Tegmark's multiverse theory doesn't make it appropriate to initiate -- or multiply --
the gratuitous.
get fucked
Well, based upon the vast vocabulary as evidenced by this incisive argument by the
poster, obviously a man of the vast intellect and insight of a George Bush!
Impressive
How do I unsubscribe from this list - there appears to be no DIGEST version and you
should have an unsubscribe with every email.
-- Original Message --
From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:27:25 -0800
Thanks, Matt, yes it
lighten up benny
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: a possible paradox
Tegmark's multiverse theory doesn't make it appropriate to initiate -- or
multiply -- the gratuitous.
get
Everytime this thread is responded to with the F word our IT department gets notified
and, in turn, notifies me about a blip on the content filter. Its a pain in my ass,
so please drop the word if responding. Thanks.
Actually I wasn't thinking about physically impossible things happening
very rarely (QM) but only about regular physics vs probability of things
happening.
If you consider quantum mechanics you are right in an infinite universe
there could be areas in which physics just happens to work very
, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: a possible paradox
Actually I wasn't thinking about physically impossible things happening
very rarely (QM) but only about regular physics vs probability of things
happening.
If you consider quantum mechanics you are right in an infinite universe
there could be areas
I've not posted to this group previously, but I can't resist this one ;^)
Hal Finney wrote:
Matt King writes:
I should point out that there does remain a vanishingly small
possibility that we could be in one of the extremely 'magical' universes
where both macroscopic and microscopic laws of
regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Mirai Shounen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Federico Marulli [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: a possible paradox
Actually I wasn't thinking about physically impossible things happening
very
I am an Italian student of Cosmology and it is the first time I write
something in this mailing list. I didn't have the time to read all your
messages, so I don't know if my thought about multiverses is a new one or
not. Anyway I would like to propose you my reflection about this topic.
My
Federico Marulli writes:
I am an Italian student of Cosmology and it is the first time I write
something in this mailing list. I didn't have the time to read all your
messages, so I don't know if my thought about multiverses is a new one or
not. Anyway I would like to propose you my reflection
Hal Finney writes:
What is the paradox here? Are you saying that our deduction that we
live in a level 1 multiverse (i.e. one which is infinitely large and
full of stars and planets much like our own) is possibly wrong? That
may be true but it doesn't strike me as a paradox. All of our
Hello Frederico,
I've recently been taking part in a discussion on very similar lines
on the Fabric of Reality mailing list (yahoo groups).
Federico Marulli wrote:
My reasoning is rather simple. Dealing with an infinite level 1
multiuniverse, if an event, even an improbable one, doesn't
Matt King writes:
I should point out that there does remain a vanishingly small
possibility that we could be in one of the extremely 'magical' universes
where both macroscopic and microscopic laws of physics are skewed in a
mutually consistent way, however given the tiny probability of this
Hi Hal,
Hal Finney wrote:
Matt King writes:
I should point out that there does remain a vanishingly small
possibility that we could be in one of the extremely 'magical' universes
where both macroscopic and microscopic laws of physics are skewed in a
mutually consistent way, however given
Let me add a postscript to this quicky: does the multiverse include perfect
duplications, or only arbitrarily close to perfect - and does it make a
difference?
Stathis
From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: a possible paradox
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:52:30
Stathis Papaioannou, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
Let me add a postscript to this quicky: does the multiverse include perfect
duplications, or only arbitrarily close to perfect - and does it make a
difference?
It depends on what you mean by the multiverse, and on what the laws of
physics are
32 matches
Mail list logo
