tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post2745694617769464612..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: We almost surely don't live in a multiverse where every possibility is realized exactly onceAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-8774874620153125332013-02-14T19:56:36.692-06:002013-02-14T19:56:36.692-06:00Lewis explicitly leaves it unanswered whether ther...Lewis explicitly leaves it unanswered whether there are duplicate worlds.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-45181515405880751452013-02-14T18:17:04.585-06:002013-02-14T18:17:04.585-06:00I think this is related to the idea of modal reali...I think this is related to the idea of modal realism isn't it? After all, a supporter of modal realism makes the claim that there is no reason a single world should be privileged and makes the logical leap to conclude that all possible worlds are actual. But this post made me realize that by their logic, there is no reason for any world to be actualized only once, so a modal realist would have to explain why we shouldn't expect an infinite amount of worlds that are exactly the same as each other.Samihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649613938638506260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-58339007243319053352013-02-13T07:16:37.498-06:002013-02-13T07:16:37.498-06:00There are many multiverse theories. The ones that ...There are many multiverse theories. The ones that have a chance of being true had better be probabilistic.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-59661992349240414212013-02-13T00:28:39.871-06:002013-02-13T00:28:39.871-06:00I think there is something wrong here. You are ass...I think there is something wrong here. You are assuming that the multiverse theory is a probalistic one, but it isn't. Ejecución Infinitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10863001694809907282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-2594085004715247822013-02-09T19:38:49.596-06:002013-02-09T19:38:49.596-06:00Alex:
Can you find me one of those 2**100 univers...Alex:<br /><br />Can you find me one of those 2**100 universes with the following characteristics - all full of Boone and Crockett deer (deer season was a bummer) a sky full of geese (goose season was too warm and they didn't come down); no need to work (work interferes with hunting), and no sinus infections or head colds (I've lost most of this weekend to one). I know I'm asking for a perfect world but with 2**100 universes the chances of finding one are good. :-)Dagmara Lizlovshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744785407281199347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-21542335940382567142013-02-09T12:16:42.951-06:002013-02-09T12:16:42.951-06:00And that's why I don't think "multive...And that's why I don't think "multiverses" provide any challenge to fine-tuning arguments. You can't expect to get <i>Hamlet</i> out of a computer program that produces random sequences of letters; but you could if it were programmed to produce every possible sequence. Similarly, if there's no pattern to the multiverse, we can't rely on its producing a universe like this one. And if there is a pattern — if, say, it is designed to produce all (or most) possible universes — then it is itself "tuned" in some way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-24008215061881435252013-02-08T11:38:00.088-06:002013-02-08T11:38:00.088-06:00Hey, 1 is small. :-)Hey, 1 is small. :-)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-47422665312124947372013-02-08T08:46:15.088-06:002013-02-08T08:46:15.088-06:00I was going to correct you about that very small n...I was going to correct you about that very small number that looked suspiciously close to one, but you fixed it. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com