Le 29-oct.-05, à 00:57, Hal Finney a écrit :
I would suggest that the multiverse concept is better thought of in
somewhat different terms. It's goal is not really to explain where the
universe comes from. (In fact, that question does not even make sense
to me.)
I think we should not
Le 28-oct.-05, à 17:54, GottferDamnt a écrit (for-list):
Hi,
I would like talk about this quote from an old topic:
This is a rather shocking conclusion. We are conscious here and
now because our (computational state) belongs to aleph_1 (or
2^aleph_0 for those who doesn't want to rely on
My phrase something from nothing was not meant
to restrict my inquiry to origins, in the sense of time or causality,
but can be viewed in terms of information in general.
It seems that the discussion has not contradicted my initial idea that,
when it comes to explaining why things are the way
Bruno,
So why is it that from the 3rd person point of view everyone dies?
Also along the lines of the Let There Be Something thread, isn't it
also true that a finite set of finite histories, or even a countable
set of infinite histories, is of measure zero in the continuum? If
this is the
I should have said a countable set of countable histories.
Tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:05:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re: Quantum Suicide)
Bruno,
So why is it that
Tom Caylor writes:
I believe that my statement before:
...simply bringing in the hypothetical set of all unobservable things
doesn't explain rationally in any way (deeper than our direct
experience) the existence of observable things.
applies to the multiverse as well, since
the multiverse
Hi,
as I said before I don't think/feel that single universe is on the same level
as multiverse... Just by using absurd feeling I was talking about. If there
is a single reality, you have to anwser why this one ? why like this ? what
is the ultimate reason for the reality to be limited to this
Unfortunately lately I do not have the time to read and think through
each post but I would like to briefly point out that my approach has
the Godelian ingredients of completeness/incompleteness,
consistency/inconsistency and self reference. The power set of
divisions of the list provides [I
Hi Tom,
I second Russell on this and would add that Leibniz's question why this
and not some other (or whatever the exact quote is) really bring the
question to a head. I would also point out that the so called initial
conditions and fine tuning problem is a version of this.
Personally, I
9 matches
Mail list logo
