From: Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 17:59:54 MST
Of course, in Tegmark's perspective we can only observe one universe in
the multiverse.
However, if we trust our physics and math enough to let us extrapolate
the existence of these other parallel universes, then we should trust it
enough to let us theorize mathematically/statistically about their
probabilistic properties.
-- Ben G
> Even if all possible universes "exist" in Tegmark's sense, this
doesn't
> imply that all possible patterns in universes are equally likely.
This
> is the point of "attractors" -- some patterns are more likely to
emerge
> in more Tegmarkian universes because they tend to be attractors
> (speaking loosely) of universal dynamics. The "universal morality" in
> this perspective becomes a "metaversal morality" which contains the
> ethical rules that appear to be followed by the pattern dynamics in
the
> vast majority of universes.
>
> -- Ben G
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sl4@sl4.org [mailto:owner-sl4@sl4.org] On Behalf Of
> > EvolverTCB@aol.com
> > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 6:54 PM
> > To: sl4@sl4.org
> > Subject: RE: Ethics of the Cosmos
> >
> > Ben G wrote:
> > "choices that are more in harmony with the intrinsic nature of the
> > universe, are more likely to be actualizable."
> >
> > Based on what I read in Tegmark's Sci Am article on alternate
> universes
> > last year, all possibilities do, it would seem , exist. For example
> there
> > is an exact clone of you somewhere within about three Hubble
volumes.
> > Where can 'God' and 'morality' fit into a reality of this sort?
> > The only sane interpretations I can find among major religions are
in
> > Buddhist and other Eastern literature; here we find sohpisticated
> ideas
> > about figure/ground relationships, cycles of creation and
destruction,
> > personal choice and integration into a whole that is somehow mind
and
> more
> > than mind. Personal responsibility, yes. But no angry bearded
> Nobodaddy
> > hurling bolts at sinners.
> >
> > Morality then becomes "What path do I choose from those that seem
> > possible?" "What kind of world do I choose to create/embody/seek?"
> "What
> > kind of person do I have to be to exist in that sort of world?"
> > If the cosmos as a whole has an ethic, it might well be "Here's
stuff.
> You
> > break it, you buy it."
> > But, as the I Ching says, no blame.
> >
> > Question: do some paths inevitably end well, others not? How much
> choice
> > do we actually have?
> > If dead and buried = 0% free will
> > and God-like powers = 100% free will
> > the we must be somewhere in between (can't fly unassisted, etc.)
> > and even old Nobodaddy (Wm. Blake's coinage) can't violate logic
(cf.
> the
> > old Catholic-school question "Faddah, can God make a rock so big he
> can't
> > lift it?")
> > I just can't get away from the idea that we are only choosing
pathways
> > that always existed (yep, Permutation City...)
> > Tom Buckner
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT