**From:** *geodesicallyincomplete@warpmail.net*

**Date:** Sat Apr 26 2003 - 15:24:04 MDT

**Next message:**Simon Gordon: "RE: Infinite universe"**Previous message:**Paul Hughes: "FTL vs. Infinite Universes"**Next in thread:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universes"**Reply:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universes"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> wrote:

*> Ah, but not quite. For example, our mathematical structure supports the
*

*> simulation of other mathematical structures, and some mathematical
*

*> structures could have multiple embedded mathematical structures that
*

*> are subtly but causally related. Certainly this wouldn't happen for
*

*> "most" mathematical structures, but there is no reason to assume one
*

*> couldn't construct one.
*

This is correct. If one mathematical structure is implemented somehow

inside another, facts about the former mathematical structure will

determine events in the latter. These facts are also facts about the

latter mathematical structure (the fact that "spaceships" can exist in

the Game of Life, vs. the fact that if you set up a Game of Life

simulation in our universe, it can contain "spaceships"). If you accept

that two processes implemented in different "worlds" can still be the

same process, then other mathematical universes can certainly affect us.

However, this can only happen through events in this mathematical

universe (over here in Bayesia -- I'm starting to feel patriotic

already). There still has to be a civilization to simulate the structure

that is supposed to already have "consumed" us, or it has to come about

in some natural way. Therefore, the Level IV multiverse adds nothing to

the Fermi paradox. We need still not worry about Invaders from the

Monster Group.

By the way, I don't object to calling this Level IV universe the "Bayes

Process" for now, though in the long run it will be less confusing to

refer to a universe by the name of the mathematical theory it's

isomorphic to. Our universe might be something like "M-Theory" or "thrice

metacanonically compactified d-transsymmetrical paramanifolds with

quadruply floxomorphic boundary conditions for the case B^2 == 15".

Does our Hubble region need a name (other than "the visible universe")?

Nus

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web

**Next message:**Simon Gordon: "RE: Infinite universe"**Previous message:**Paul Hughes: "FTL vs. Infinite Universes"**Next in thread:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universes"**Reply:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universes"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT
*