The Multiverse and many of the variations and questions loping back
and forth here have been asked and addressed, with paradigm-consistent
explanations, in contemporary Buddhist texts. See Robert Thurman, for
example.
I am reminded of the saying 'a weed is just a plant we haven't found a
use for yet' when I hear these kinds of discussions. Explanations from
other disciplines standing in for the unwanted weed, dontcha know.
Our approaches to these questions come from many directions and move
towards this strange attractor of the 'multiverse'. And these
approaches are not as far apart as one might, ahem, think. Artichokes,
anyone?
Tory
On Apr 18, 2009, at 8:35 PM, russell standish wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 01:12:09PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote:
Occam must be holding his head.
-- Russ
It is a mistake to think Occam's razor rejects the Multiverse. In fact
the opposite situation is true - Occam's razor is a reason for
preferring the Multiverse. Many people have discussed this (under
terms like zero information principle, or minimum information
principle), but you could take a look at my book Theory of Nothing,
which is a free download. Apologies for the plug.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
