From: maru (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 16:34:09 MST
Geddes, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that there were
anthropic observations you could make,
if you assume that our current universe is randomly selected from the
subset of inhabitable universes. Our universe
would then be more likely to fall in the majority of universes. So you
could then test the mediocrity of our universes;
the more mediocre, the more support lent to multiverse (and the more
exceptional in a way that has no influence
on whether observers will arise, the less likely multi-verse.)
Marc Geddes wrote:
>Skeptics about the existence of atoms used exactly the
>same argument to argue against atoms at the beginning
>of the 20th century. They said:
>'I have a degree in physics, and I can tell you that
>there is no *observable* difference between the
>'atoms' theory, and other interpretations'
>You cannot presuppose in advance what will and will
>not later turn out to be observable. The 'atoms'
>theory started out as philosophy. It got turned into
>science when much later on people found out ways to
>make direct obersvations on the microscopic scale (for
>instance the scanning tunnelling microscopic).
>It simply isn't the case that there is no observable
>different between differing interpretations. As I
>mentioned, leading physicist David Deutsch has
>proposed real experiments to distinguish between the
>differing interpretations, and just recently Afshar
>did a variation of the double-slit experiment in order
>to try to distinguish between differing
>"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
> - Gen. John Stark
>"The Universe...or nothing!"
>Please visit my web-sites.
>Sci-Fi and Fantasy : http://www.prometheuscrack.com
>Mathematics, Mind and Matter : http://www.riemannai.org
>Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT