wedrifid comments on Natural Laws Are Descriptions, not Rules - Less Wrong

32 Post author: pragmatist 08 August 2012 04:27AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (234)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 August 2012 02:51:04PM *  1 point [-]

What do you think of Max Tegmark's answer, that it's because universes with every possible (i.e., non-contradictory) set of laws of physics exist and we happen to be in one with electromagnetic dynamics derived from Maxwell's Lagrangian?

I think Tegmark's idea is either tautological or preposterous, depending on what he means by exist. If exist means ‘exist in an abstract, mathematical sense’ (as it does in the sentence There exist infinitely many prime numbers) then it's tautological, and if it means ‘physically exist in this particular universe (i.e., the set of everything that can interact or have interacted with us, or interact or have interacted with something that can interact or have interacted with us, etc.)’ (as it does in the sentence Santa does not exist), it's preposterous. The last chapter in Good and Real by Gary Drescher elaborates on this.

Once again, we badly need different words for ‘be mathematically possible’ and ‘be part of this universe’.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 August 2012 01:09:35AM 2 points [-]

I think Tegmark's idea is either tautological or preposterous, depending on what he means by exist.

From what I can tell, Tegmark doesn't mean either of the options you provide. It is closer to the first option ('exist in the abstract') but without all the implied privilege for the universe that happens to have you in it. The difference seems significant.