Norman, you seem to arrive back at Fred Hoyl's infinite harmonic worldview without any thoughts of a begin or end. Although that sounds reasonable - as far as our capabilities are concerned, but we (who?) like to go a step further and satisfy our "logic" or at least "taste" by (fairytales?) theories fitting our present mental capabilities. John Mikes
--- Norman Samish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > >
