Making sense of EPW
jbone at deepfile.com
Tue Apr 29 11:29:21 PDT 2003
On Tuesday, Apr 29, 2003, at 09:59 US/Central, Russell Turpin wrote:
> EPW is quite a bit richer and more expansive in
> the number of universes there are than MWI. I've
> long been a proponent of MWI, simply because it
> is what the quantum theory says, without all the
> kludgery of wave collapse or giving some special
> ontological status to observers. EPW goes far
> beyond that, on philosophical grounds rather than
> on physics theory. EPW says there is no physics
> theory, except relative to the universes that
> adhere to it. A physics simply subsets universes,
> nothing more.
So we have a level problem, here. I guess what I would say is that EPW
is an abstraction of physical theory, based on the assumption that you
don't prune phase space based on particular constants and laws, you
merely cluster it around them. I.e., it doesn't necessarily assume
that locally observed constants and laws are in the larger sense
universal (or meta-universal) --- which IMHO is good scientific bias.
:-) Hence it's a meta-physical hypothesis in which various other
physical theories arise.
But I still think that you're missing an interesting application, here
--- that being the application of finding principles by which this
clustering occurs, which (intuitively, I admit that I haven't gone very
far down this road) lead to a more concrete and useful physical theory
of whatever constitutes "reality" (or "realities") in a
Evidence to support EPW: constructing experiments to prove EPW will
likely be very, very hard. (By contrast, experiments to prove stock
MWQM are trivial, conducted by high school students every day, i.e.
diffraction slit, etc. Many folks just don't like the ontological
consequences. ;-) OTOH, I think certain physical theories (cf.
T'Hooft's Beables and Changeables,  etc.) are pushing generally in
the direction of a fundamental information-theoretic basis for physics.
Similarly, it seems to me that certain maths are pushing towards the
same point from the opposite direction. When they meet in the middle,
at a minimum Occam's Razor, complexity theories e.g. Kolmogorov and
Chaitin, etc. should be useful in trimming away less-likely
uber-cosmological information-theoretic physical hypotheses.
It's easy to argue that Champerknowne's is an incredibly simple
"universal universe generator." There may be others. Is anyone aware
of other numbers which, in their infinite binary expansion, contain all
other numbers as substrings?
More information about the FoRK