This is a fascinating discussion list, full of stimulating ideas and
theories, but I would be interested to know what people *actually* believe
on the subject of many/all worlds - what one would bet one's house or life
on, given that one were forced to choose some such bet.
For my own part, I
Alastair Malcolm writes:
For my own part, I give strong credibility (50%) to the existence of many
worlds in some guise or other, and in particular to the existence of all
logically possible(*) worlds (alpw). For me the existence of one world
(ours) so conveniently life-suited - sufficiently
I can't conceive of space-time being anything other than infinite. The
existence of all logically possible worlds seems necessary in infinite
space-time, where . . . anything that can happen must happen, not only once
but an infinite number of times.
The difficulty, as Hal Finney points out,
My views on the subject of a multiverse are:
1) The base level embedding system should have no net information.
2) The base level embedding system should have a dynamic.
The above seem to have consequences:
i) There can be no down select [limitation] on the number of worlds.
ii) There can be no
Dear Hal,
in my multiverse it is a characteristic of this 'our' world to have
developed (into?) a space and time system. I would not assign
time to all others just becauseso we can understand it better.
(The story of the driver who looks for his (in the darkenss) dropped carkeys
around the corner
Hi Russell:
My dynamic in part produces worlds that appear to have time as a property
but also produces all kinds of worlds that have no time in the sense of
there being any ordered sequence. There are also worlds that are just a
single kernel that is given physical reality in a manner
6 matches
Mail list logo
