Parallel universes closer than expected ?
The article in Scientific American gives a number of 10 raised to 10 to 28 for finding a clone. This includes replication down to the molecular level. But since this level of awareness is beyond human senses a lower limit can found just by thinking about taking one of those fancy digital cameras out for a walk. See more on http://www.algonet.se/~vohu/pu/iu
Re: are we in a simulation?
Title: Re: are we in a simulation? I agree, by definition no one can cap many-worlds theory with a god somewhere up the ladder without some new extra-dimensional (space*time) theory (unless, does level IV allow this?) A pseudo-many-worlds multiverse can however have a god if it is of the ancestor-simulation design (http://www.simulation-argument.com/). This is of course to ignore, the whole level 1234 multiverse. It is more understandable, and a little creepier-in a believable sort of way when one considers that our universes physics cannot yet be proven to defy advanced computer-science. Ancestor-simulation is a study inwards of our universe. The whole ancestor-simulation phenomenon is certainly being considered by the inhabitants of other level 1, 2, 3 4 universes who cannot defy their mathematical physics. David Kwinter On 6/6/03 5:31 PM, John Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The argument that many-worlds theory implies that we are 'almost certainly' in a computer simulation has been put forward by many people, and there are many similarly themed arguments used to suggest that many-worlds theory is 'obviously not true'; most of these arguments contain well hidden logical inconsistencies which involve switching back and forth between many-world and single world ideas. This leads to a rather strange way of counting the different possible 'classical universes' that we might be part of. The sleight of hand (or honest mistake) used in these arguments lies in the seemingly innocent assumption that a powerful god-like being who builds a simulation of our universe must then be the cause of our existence. This would be true in a single classical universe, but it is not true in many-worlds theory, where we should use a definition of 'causing' or 'implying' involving a correlation between different classical universes, ie. that [god-like being does not simulate us] =(almost always) [we do not exist]. This is discussed in David Deutsch's 'The Fabric of Reality', where he gives the example that no butterflies cause hurricanes by flapping their wings (unless you put one in a human built 'hurricane mahine' with a touch sensitive keyboard).. How we should correctly 'count the universes' in which we live is by starting with what we know exists: Ourselves, the planet Earth, evidence of our ancestry, the surrounding galaxies, etc. and looking at what we can 'append' to this universe: We could have some universes where there is everything we know exists, plus super-intelligient beings who behave as though they are controlling us, but for each of these, one would expect many more universes containing everything we know exists, plus some generic random distribution of (generally non-living) matter, such as some rocks or a cloud.
a prediction of the anthropic principle/MWT
The fact that we're alive shows that as a species we've been historically very 'lucky', the biggest 'break' being in the finely tuned initial conditions for our universe. At least a level I many-worlds theory is needed to explain this. But in a higher level MWT this good luckmight have extended further. For instance, our planet might have experienced an unusually high number of 'near misses' with other astronomical bodies. Now that we're here to watch, the universe will be forced to obey the law of averages,so there could be a significantly higher probability of a deadly asteroid collision than would be indicated by the historical frequeny of said events. Perhaps we should carefully compare how often the other planets have been hit with how often we have: They certainly look more craterful Have there been any serious studies into this? It's not justidle philosophial musings, it affects the way our governments should be spending our money (or rather your money; I'm a non-earning student).
Re: a prediction of the anthropic principle/MWT
John Collins writes: The fact that we're alive shows that as a species we've been historically very 'lucky', the biggest 'break' being in the finely tuned initial conditions for our universe. At least a level I many-worlds theory is needed to explain this. Yes, more like level 2, I'd say. That's where you get variations on the dimensionality of the universe and the values of physical constants. I think those are the parameters which are said to be finely tuned in order to allow the kinds of stability that would allow structure to form. But in a higher level MWT this good luck might have extended further. For instance, our planet might have experienced an unusually high number of 'near misses' with other astronomical bodies. Now that we're here to watch, the universe will be forced to obey the law of averages, so there could be a significantly higher probability of a deadly asteroid collision than would be indicated by the historical frequeny of said events. Perhaps we should carefully compare how often the other planets have been hit with how often we have: They certainly look more craterful Certainly an interesting direction to pursue. However I think the anthropic prediction in such cases is that our history would have been just barely good enough to allow life like us to form. If meteor bombardment should have wiped us out, we would predict that we would have experienced a history of heavy meteor strikes, not quite enough to wipe us out, but enough to be very troublesome. Have there been any serious studies into this? It's not just idle philosophial musings, it affects the way our governments should be spending our money (or rather your money; I'm a non-earning student). I've seen a few papers that look at the possibility that the evolution of intelligent life is overwhelmingly unlikely. Robin Hanson has a couple of papers on this, http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html and a more technical one at http://hanson.gmu.edu/hardstep.pdf. Hal Finney
