From: Samantha Atkins (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 - 04:19:48 MST
Hmm. Last time I checked his theory is just that, theory. Whether it
actually says a lot about how reality really is is unknown. It is
doubtful there could actually be a way to validate universes with
radically different physical laws, or even the same laws. We know of
no way to prove the existence of other universes. Yet we treat the
theory so seriously as to use it to define our own morality.
Perhaps it is just me but this seems really absurd. We should define
morality first and foremost in terms of our own nature and concerns.
After we have a good handle on that and after we have evidence
broadening the scope, we can broaden our moral reasoning and action.
Instead we theorize about the moral implications of the universe while
often doing precious little in this one or even on this one world we
It is fun and all to speculate. But it feels like intellectual
masturbation much of the time.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:55:56 -0800 (PST), Thomas Buckner
> --- David Massoglia
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > This stuff I understand. I just have no idea
> > on what to make of this
> > multi-verse talk, which makes no sense to me.
> > I wish someone would explain
> > why I should believe in the multi-verse and
> > what it is.
> Max Tegmark wrote an excellent May 2003
> Scientific American cover article on this, which
> you can no longer read online for free. I
> consider this article seminal and absolutely
> necessary for anyone in 2004 who claims to
> understand the real nature of existence. He has a
> website which will get you up to speed;
> Tom Buckner
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT