Eric Hawthorne wrote:
So the answer to *why* it is true that our universe conforms to simple
regularities and produces complex yet ordered systems governed
(at some levels) by simple rules, it's because that's the only kind of
universe that an emerged observer could have emerged
in, so that's
Hal Finney wrote:
Jesse Mazer writes:
Hal Finney wrote:
However, I prefer a model in which what we consider equally likely is
not patterns of matter, but the laws of physics and initial conditions
which generate a given universe. In this model, universes with simple
laws are far more likely
Hal Finney wrote:
What about a universe whose space-time was subject to all the same
physical laws as ours in all regions - except in the vicinity of rabbits?
And in those other regions some other laws applied which allow rabbits
to behave magically?
While this may be possible, we seem to have
John Collins writes:
I described a special case of this in a posting on this list a while
ago, suggesting that we're almost certainly not in a simulated, 'second
order' universe: Basically, for every arrangement of matter you could append
to our universe that would look like some creature
Chris Collins wrote:
This paradox has its origin in perception rather than fundamental
physics:
If I fill a huge jar with sugar and proteins and minerals and shake it,
there is no reason why I can't produce a talking rabbit, or even a unicorn
with two tails. Yet out out of the vast menagerie of
Hal Finney wrote:
I think the problem with your argument is that you are assuming that all
physical arrangements of matter appended to the universe are equally
likely. And in that case, you are right that some random arrangement
would be far more likely than one which looks like an observer who
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Why, out of all possible experiences compatible with my existence, do
I only observe the ones that don't violate the assumption that the
laws of physics work the same way in all places and at all times?
There are two kinds of white rabbits: microscopic and macroscopic.
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Why, out of all possible experiences compatible with my existence, do
I only observe the ones that don't violate the assumption that the
laws of physics work the same way in all places and at all times?
Because a universe whose space-time was subject to different physical
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Why, out of all possible experiences compatible with my existence, do
I only observe the ones that don't violate the assumption that the
laws of physics work the same way in all places and at all times?
Eric Hawthorne replied:
Because a universe whose space-time was
9 matches
Mail list logo