Dear Laura

When you enumerating arguments for Multiverse, you could add also Darwinian evolution and Tegmark's mathematical multiverse.

It seems to me, that Linde's multiverse is very possible. Esspecialy, because a reason for big bang does not yet exist. But I do not believe in many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Becase this means that free will does not exist. But this is strongly against my intuition. I hope that this can be possible to prove also mathematically.

I think that physical laws should be simple and this is a little in contradiction with anthropic principle, because any reduction of physical laws means reduction of anthropic principle. Reduction means, for instance, that G, h, and c cause that physics is dimensionless. Admittedly, when this simplification is not clear, there it is free space for anthropic principle. What do you think about this? I also do not believe in Tegmark's multiverse. My intuition says that QG theory should be written on t-shirt.

You addressed also a question of consciousness, which is important to explain physics.

Otherwise, I am more positivist, but, for instance, I disagree with positivists, for instance I claim, if a cause of Big Bang is not explained, Multiverse is possible.

My essay

Best regards,

Janko Kokosar

Dear Laura,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

15 days later

Dear Laura Mersini-Houghton,

I like your clear style and the optimistic outlook, but must confess that your essay did not persuade me in the end.

For instance, you write that you find it hard to accept it as a coincidence that in different branches of modern physics the idea of a multiplicity of world has surfaced. However, agreeing that it is not a coincidence does not need to imply that this idea corresponds to the ultimate structure of reality. It could, for instance, simply be a lack of human imagination, or a common response to certain theoretical limitations, and of course once an idea is launched within a branch of physics it will more easily spread to other branches of the same discipline.

In addition, I wonder what you think of the naturalistic approaches (there are quite a number of essays that take this stance, although they develop it in various ways): these take language, mathematics, and science as something that co-evolved with humans. Do you think ideas of this kind are compatible with the levels you refer to?

Best wishes,

Sylvia Wenmackers - Essay Children of the Cosmos

Dear Laura,

I like that you are tackling the initial conditions problem, as I agree it is a vexing one. This is not only a problem in physics but also in other sciences, including biology where the "specialness" of initial conditions seems to be fairly acute. However, there you can in principle (I think) get around it by coupling laws to states, i.e., having state-dependent dynamics (note this also yields interesting features such as path-dependence seemingly characteristic of life). This is interesting to me as it suggests what the true divide inhibiting reconciliation of physics with biology is that in physics we tend to strictly separate laws from states, and in biology that boundary is blurred. I am curious if you have ever thought on state-dependent dynamical laws as a solution to the initial condition problem (its sounds almost like your dynamic landscape model might be approaching this).

All the best,

Sara

3 months later

Dear Laura,

I like your point of view. One of the reason is there is not any antropological based sign , even argument which doing us more or less for important for universe itself.

Every good theory need a lot of test: So Did you test your prediction with holographics principle ?

Can be your wave function of our universe holographicaly extended to be by-us seen universe ?

If yes, for optical hologram we need two sources-streams of light. What kind of streams do you need to create hologram from wave of our universe ?

Thanks ahead

Jan

Dear Laura,

I like your point of view. One of the reason is there is not any antropological based sign , even argument which doing us more or less for important for universe itself.

Every good theory need a lot of test: So Did you test your prediction with holographics principle ?

Can be your wave function of our universe holographicaly extended to be by-us seen universe ?

If yes, for optical hologram we need two sources-streams of light. What kind of streams do you need to create hologram from wave of our universe ?

Thanks ahead

Jan

Write a Reply...