In which I falsify the Level IV Multiverse

[drelda]

The interesting thing about this thread is that it demonstrates that the MUH is a scientific idea. The OP attempts to falsify it by arguing it makes predictions about what we should observe in our universe - which are not observed.

I don't think the argument used is correct - but it highlights that the MUH could be falsified. Isn't that the essence of what it means to be a scientific idea?

- Drelda

 

[dogjones]

Of course I want you to prove it.

I do understand what you are saying. "It's obvious".

But, come on, let's see a mathematical proof.

He either Cantor won't...

 

[Robin]

Fair enough.

But in that case, we can easily answer the question at the end of your OP:


You have not: An argument from incredulity does not falsify a hypothesis.

HTH. HAND!

Excellent, so you are saying that the only argument against what Ken Ham says is an argument from incredulity.

 

[Robin]

Of course I want you to prove it.

I do understand what you are saying. "It's obvious".

But, come on, let's see a mathematical proof.

Mathematical proof - like there are for all the other claims in this forum you mean

I can outline it:

Let n be the number of ways that my day could pan out if the laws of physics hold

Godzilla in hotpants appearing out of nothing would be an event not covered by the laws of physics so there is at least n+1 ways my day could pan out if the laws of physics did not hold.

Since the rest of my day would be as per the laws of physics and so there could be a miraculous event for every non miraculous event so there are at least 2n ways my day could pan out if the laws of physics did not hold.

The Godzilla event could happen at millisecond intervals so this represents 86,400,000 ways a single Godzilla event could occur and as before each of these days could happen in as many ways as a non-miraculous day and so there are at least 86,400,000n ways my day could hang out.

So consider a day in which 5 different Godzillas appear wearing different colour hotpants.

These can happen at any combination of second intervals and so the ways my day could pan out if the laws of physics did not hold is at least 5x10^39 times the number of ways my day could pan out if the laws of physics did hold.

And I haven't even started on Mothra.

Is there really any doubt about this?

 

[Robin]

I'm starting to think there is a continuous spectrum grading from complete nonsense at one end , through philosophy, mathematics and physics to a higher frequency form of complete nonsense at the other end. Somewhere in the middle is the narrow range of frequencies comprising reality, common sense , tripe & onions and chartered accountancy.

Exactly where this thread lies is a matter of speculation.

It lies slightly before the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.

 

[Robin]

Referring to the bolded sentence above, this is a consequence of MUH much in the way many worlds is a consequence of QM (level III in Tegmark's jargon) or "pocket universes" (level II) are a consequence of fine tuning. My take is that one can consider MUH without this added conjecture. I believe that the word "consequence" as used by Tegmark in this context should be replaced by possible consequence.

No.

According to the MUH all possible mathematical structures exist.

The digital demigods are simply some sort of computer with a program and are therefore a mathematically well defined structure.

So they are a consequence, (not a possible consequence) of the MUH.

 

[Robin]

The interesting thing about this thread is that it demonstrates that the MUH is a scientific idea. The OP attempts to falsify it by arguing it makes predictions about what we should observe in our universe - which are not observed.

I don't think the argument used is correct - but it highlights that the MUH could be falsified. Isn't that the essence of what it means to be a scientific idea?

- Drelda

Indeed - but why do you think the argument is incorrect?

Incidentally Tegmark argues that the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is a consequence of the External Reality Hypothesis.

If he is right about this and if the MUH was falsified then it would falsify the External Reality Hypothesis.

Which would make Idealism a perfectly respectable scientific concept.

 

[Robin]

I suppose the "Godzilla in hotpants" terminology makes it seem that I am not serious.

But I cannot see why the MUH does not predict such algorithmic worlds.

 

[Robin]

I can outline it:

...

Granted this version will only work with the Computable Universe Hypothesis. In the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis there may be an uncountable infinity of ways my day can pan out non-miraculously (physicists are not agreed on this).

I can show that there is an uncountable infinity of digital demigod universes as well but without more details of what the MUH means it would be difficult to be show a correspondence.

 

[theprestige]

Excellent, so you are saying that the only argument against what Ken Ham says is an argument from incredulity.

No, I'm saying that of all the possible arguments against what Ken Ham is saying, the argument you have chosen is a logical fallacy, and therefore does not disprove what Ken Ham is saying.

 

[marplots]

No.

According to the MUH all possible mathematical structures exist.

Could you give an example of an impossible mathematical structure?

 

[Robin]

No, I'm saying that of all the possible arguments against what Ken Ham is saying, the argument you have chosen is a logical fallacy, and therefore does not disprove what Ken Ham is saying.

Logical fallacy - where?

 

[Robin]

Could you give an example of an impossible mathematical structure?

Why?

 

[Robin]

Could you give an example of an impossible mathematical structure?

But, assuming the question has any relevance - an algorithm to enumerate the digits of a chaitin constant.

 

[marplots]

According to the MUH all possible mathematical structures exist.

Could you give an example of an impossible mathematical structure?

Why?

I'm trying to understand your description. It seems to me to beg the question of possibility. I could as well assert that all possible universes exist and there's just this one, because multiples are impossible. The question of possibility seems to stand outside of what I can imagine and comment with an authority above my own musings.

 

[drelda]

Indeed - but why do you think the argument is incorrect?

I think your argument assumes a particular 'measure' - ie a way of ordering an infinite set of universes. There was some discussion of this recently here.

I don't think you falsified the MUH (or any of the other levels of multiverse which would all have the same issue) - but I think you have falsified that this particular measure is the one that drives what we observe in reality.

To illustrate the problem - imagine you ask me what percentage of the integers are even. I answer 2/3 and prove it by showing that when I order the integers in this way :

1, 2, 4, 3, 6, 8, 5, 10, 12, 7, 14, 16, 9, 18, 20...

This list will contain every integer - but it looks like there are twice as many even numbers as odd numbers. In fact for every odd number in the list you can see that there are always 2 even numbers.

This is what you did essentially when you argued that for every 'normal' universe there would be 2 or more 'godzilla' universes - you constructed an ordering (measure) that did this - but that result was entirely dependent on the measure used.

For integers we have a natural ordering - so its easy to say there is a right answer. However for infinite sets of universes we don't know which measure to use.

This is the 'measure problem' that Max Tegmark thinks is the "greatest crisis in physics today" - because without the correct measure we can't predict anything.

- Drelda

 

[theprestige]

Logical fallacy - where?

Your argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

 

[poblob14]

Strangely enough, I just got an email that accidentally came through from another of the multiple universes. Clearly it's Obama's fault. Anyway, it's from someone called Nibor, who is, remarkably enough, having the same discussion, and taking the same position as Robin. It says, in part:

Obviously, it is a definite prediction and consequence of the MUH that it is vanishingly improbable that I can see even one day out without a noticeably miraculous event occurring to me. I define a "noticeably miraculous event" as something like the following:

• People show up in droves to watch men hit a sphere and run in circles, paying them exhorbitant salaries while children starve on the streets.
• The entire survival of the human species depends upon injecting each other with bodily fluids while contorted into improbable positions; however, people go to ridiculous lengths to avoid the actual exchange of fluids while continuing to go through the acts causing the injection.
• Miley Cyrus is considered a singer.

If these kind of things happened daily, I would believe in the MUH; but since our universe is not like that, clearly the MUH is false.

 

[Toontown]

A universal computer is, of course, mathematically possible...

Hold it right there. Thought you'd just slip that past, did you?

You aren't falsifying anything until you demonstrate the truth of the above bald assertion. Which you cannot, of course, do.

Because a universal computer is not, of course, mathematically possible. "Mathematically possible" is not, of course, a magical incantation.

You have your bald assertions, I have mine. Irrespective of your preference in bald assertions, you will need to demonstrate the truth of your opening bald assertion before before concocting any bogus conclusions therefrom.

 

[drelda]

Hold it right there. Thought you'd just slip that past, did you?

You aren't falsifying anything until you demonstrate the truth of the above bald assertion. Which you cannot, of course, do.

Because a universal computer is not, of course, mathematically possible. "Mathematically possible" is not, of course, a magical incantation.

You have your bald assertions, I have mine. Irrespective of your preference in bald assertions, you will need to demonstrate the truth of your opening bald assertion before before concocting any bogus conclusions therefrom.

Hi,

I don't agree with Robin's conclusion - but I don't think this is the problem with his argument.

The idea of a 'universal computer' is well defined mathematically. i.e. :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus

It has been proven formally that those 2 mathematical representations of computation (and others) have the same power as each other.

Therefore any given computable function is a well defined mathematical structure.

Note - I don't think Robin's argument even relies on this point - he raises it in the context of the Level IV multiverse and MUH - but his logic would apply equally to Level I, or quantum fluctuations etc - ie any infinite set of potential outcomes can be ordered so that it appears (under that ordering) that a given outcome would be more likely.

- Drelda