Re: Asifism revisited.
On 09/07/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always > static. Then you must get very bored ;) David > > > > On Jul 9, 7:47 pm, "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Because > > > everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe. > > > All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in > > > B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both > > > universes. > > > > We're disagreeing because you just don't accept my basic point about > > reflexive existence, which IMO is a pity, because ISTM to clarify what > > the "stuff" might be, and makes it much more difficult to take the > > 'zombie world' seriously. In fact, as I've said, I think you would > > have to postulate the absence of dynamic time in the B-Universe in > > order to make your claims plausible, but then the B-Universe could > > hardly be claimed to be "exactly the same". > > There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always > static. > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
(Reposted because of some techical problems...) On Jul 7, 2:00 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote: > > > > > David Nyman skrev: > >> You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and > >> important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'. > > 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes. > > Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers. The > > truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers. > > I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is not primitive in my > opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model > perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism. Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model. When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited number of times. And the result of these rules is existing, in the same way as our universe is existing. Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On Jul 9, 7:47 pm, "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Because > > everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe. > > All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in > > B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both > > universes. > > We're disagreeing because you just don't accept my basic point about > reflexive existence, which IMO is a pity, because ISTM to clarify what > the "stuff" might be, and makes it much more difficult to take the > 'zombie world' seriously. In fact, as I've said, I think you would > have to postulate the absence of dynamic time in the B-Universe in > order to make your claims plausible, but then the B-Universe could > hardly be claimed to be "exactly the same". There can be no dynamic time. In the space-time, time is always static. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One object in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe. > But we can look at the objects in an other universe. I would say that the conjunction of the above two sentences is a contradiction. > Because > everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe. > All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in > B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both > universes. We're disagreeing because you just don't accept my basic point about reflexive existence, which IMO is a pity, because ISTM to clarify what the "stuff" might be, and makes it much more difficult to take the 'zombie world' seriously. In fact, as I've said, I think you would have to postulate the absence of dynamic time in the B-Universe in order to make your claims plausible, but then the B-Universe could hardly be claimed to be "exactly the same". However, Bruno doesn't necessarily agree with me on this, so from a comp perspective, if you say you're a zombie, I can only sympathise ;) David > > David Nyman skrev: > > Consequently we can't 'interview' B-Universe objects. > > > It is true that we can not interview objects in B-Universe. One object > in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe. > > But we can look at the objects in an other universe. Just in the same > way that we can look at a GoL-universe. So we in the A-Universe can > look at the objects in B-Universe, and see what they are doing. > > One way to interview the objects in B-Universe is to do interviewing in > the A-Universe. If A-Torgny is interviewing A-David in the A-Universe, > then B-Torgny will be interviewing B-David in the B-Universe. Because > everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe. > All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in > B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both > universes. > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
Bruno Marchal skrev: Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote: David Nyman skrev: You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'. 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes. Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers. The truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers. I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is not primitive in my opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism. Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model. When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited number of times. And the result of these rules is existing, in the same way as our universe is existing. Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Asifism revisited.
David Nyman skrev: > Consequently we can't 'interview' B-Universe objects. > It is true that we can not interview objects in B-Universe. One object in one universe can not affect any object in some other universe. But we can look at the objects in an other universe. Just in the same way that we can look at a GoL-universe. So we in the A-Universe can look at the objects in B-Universe, and see what they are doing. One way to interview the objects in B-Universe is to do interviewing in the A-Universe. If A-Torgny is interviewing A-David in the A-Universe, then B-Torgny will be interviewing B-David in the B-Universe. Because everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe. All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both universes. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Information content of multiverse
On Jul 9, 1:39 am, "Mohsen Ravanbakhsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > While I was reading the previous discussion; "justifying theory of > everything" , I thought of my recent problem with still imperfection of our > TOE. The problem is: > Multiverse by itself is a choice, and every choice by it's nature has some > bias and information. > I could just consider two mathematical universes without any bias; the first > is nothing or mathematical point. The second one is a whole, I mean a full > space in infinite dimensions(just extending the perfect circle of Plato to > remove it's bias in radius and dimension) > Any other universe should contain a choice, including the collection of all > possible universes! Why? > Consider ME! Why 'I' am in this special world and not the other one? You > might claim that I'm in the other ones as well. But I would still insist; > 'Why 'I' am in this special universe and not the other?'. I hope you get my > point. Would you know the difference if you were in all other universes at once? What about existing in every point of time that spans your life, would you not still have the illusion of only existing in the present? > I wanted to conclude from this, even if there is a multiverse there's an > information content for whole universe, and that might need another cause. > >From my understanding of Theory of Nothing, the set of all descriptions for every possible universe requires zero bits of information to describe when taken as a whole. However with observers there is discrimination within this set of descriptions, observers determine which are perceived as real and due to this discrimination individual universes requiring massive amounts of information to describe emerge from a set that takes nothing to describe. The large amount of information required to describe what we observe is due to fact that what is observed in any particular observer moment is finite, therefore requiring some information to define its bounds. I hope I have understood that part correctly; if not Russell can correct me. Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
