In which I falsify the Level IV Multiverse

[Robin]

A “Level IV Multiverse” is what Max Tegmark calls his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH).

He claims that it is a logical consequence of the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH).

One of the consequences of MUH is that any mathematically possible object actually exists.

A universal computer is, of course, mathematically possible and so, under MUH, there will exist arbitrarilily many universal computers with arbitrarily many different programs.

Many of these programs will be produce minds able to comprehend and form intentions and run algorithms themselves and so will be able to compute universes like our own universe. I call these digital demigods.

If the simplest computer is of a similar complexity to the simplest entity that can produce complexity then it is likely that digital-demigod created universes will vastly outnumber natural universes such as our own.

If this is not convincing then consider that it is mathematically possible that there is a digital demigod who wants to create arbitrarily many universes and arbitrarily many other digital demi-gods who want the same thing.

Under MUH this digital demigod exists and, since the next universe or next digital demigod carries zero improbability given the first such one, then it is clear that these universes will outnumber natural ones.

So under MUH it is vanishingly improbable that we are living in anything else than a digital-demigod created universe.

Since our universe is being calculated by a digital demigod then the DD can alter the perceived laws of physics at will and can create miracles.

So, under MUH, there is a universe where, starting next Thursday all of our heads grow to twice their normal size and shrink back again at 7.20 pm. Or a universe where each 2nd March Mothra completely destroys Seattle and then the Mysterons come and reconstruct it again.

Under MUH these universes definitely exist.

Now consider all the ways in which a noticeable miracle might happen to you today. You might turn into a large bug. Godzilla might suddenly appear and poo on you. You could go on all your life naming these.

Clearly the number of ways your day could go with a noticeably miraculous event vastly outnumber the ways your day could go if the perceived laws of physics hold.

So 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.

But I spend my entire life and never see anything that does not conform to the laws of physics. The Randi Million Dollar challenge appears to suggest that others might have this same experience.

And so the MUH is false. And if Tegmark is right about it being a consequence of ERH then external reality is false too. But I think he is simply wrong about that.

So whaddya think? Have I falsified the “Level IV” multiverse?

 

[Robin]

It occurs to me that someone might object that, if computationalism was false, then all of these universes would contain no conscious agents, merely p-zombies.

I guess that might be the case but I would have to wonder why my p-zombie equivalent in a universe following exactly the laws of physics is behaving just as I do but is not conscious.

 

[theprestige]

Trivial.

You live in a Level IV multiverse in which a digital demigod has either a) programmed the universe to be "un-miraculous", or b) has programmed you to perceive it as such.

The number of such universes is probably so large as to make it highly unlikely that you're not living in one.

Q.E.D.

 

[Robin]

Trivial.

You live in a Level IV multiverse in which a digital demigod has either a) programmed the universe to be "un-miraculous", or b) has programmed you to perceive it as such.

The number of such universes is probably so large as to make it highly unlikely that you're not living in one.

Q.E.D.

I should point out that it is customary to use "Q.E.D" when you have proved something.

I have already covered that point:

Clearly the number of ways your day could go with a noticeably miraculous event vastly outnumber the ways your day could go if the perceived laws of physics hold.

 

[Robin]

Of course I am happy to accept "No, you haven't, the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis never made sense in the first place" as an answer

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

@ Robin

Clearly the number of ways your day could go with a noticeably miraculous event vastly outnumber the ways your day could go if the perceived laws of physics hold.

Care to prove this?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Of course I am happy to accept "No, you haven't, the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis never made sense in the first place" as an answer

This is essentially my point. I'm of the opinion that the MUH is non-falsifiable by its very definition.

 

[theprestige]

I should point out that it is customary to use "Q.E.D" when you have proved something.

I have already covered that point:

No you haven't. The number of universes for which the laws of physics appear to hold for you is at least as great as the number of universes in which they don't.

Think about it: There are an infinite number of universes in which you perceive the world as it is, but in which something else entirely is happening. Just the number of universes in which you are asleep in a chair in an empty room, dreaming the world you perceive, but your hair is different, is infinite.

As I understand it, your argument can be distilled as follows:

1. As the number of universes increases, the number of universes in which I exist as such (1) becomes a smaller percentage of the whole.

2. As the number of universes increases to infinity, the percentage of universes in which I exist as such becomes infinitesimal.

3. Infinitesimal = extremely unlikely.

4. Extremely unlikely = false.

5. Therefore, it is false that there are an infinite number of universes.

Or, if we include the nonsense about miracles:

1. Given an infinite number of arbitrary creators, it is extremely unlikely that I would exist as such in a world where an arbitrary creator refrained from introducing obvious and arbitrary absurdities.

2. I do not believe I have witnessed any arbitrary absurdities.

3. I do not believe the accounts of others who claim to have witnessed arbitrary absurdities.

4. Extremely unlikely = false

5. Therefore, it is false that there are an infinite number of universes.

 

[marplots]

Maybe the miracle part is what we call the laws of physics.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe the miracle part is what we call the laws of physics.

Or maybe Robin is the miracle, and everyone who sees her obviously absurd and arbitrary exemption from the laws of physics they know and love, is convinced they live in a universe created by a digital demigod.

All we can really deduce from the evidence is that Robin exists. We simply don't have enough information to reject "one of an infinite number of possibilities" as a cause for her existence. Really, it's just the anthropic principle all over again. Or Jabba's immortality argument: If I arbitrarily assert that the odds of my existence are low, I can reasonably conclude that my existence is special in some way.

 

[marplots]

Or maybe Robin is the miracle, and everyone who sees her obviously absurd and arbitrary exemption from the laws of physics they know and love, is convinced they live in a universe created by a digital demigod.

All we can really deduce from the evidence is that Robin exists. We simply don't have enough information to reject "one of an infinite number of possibilities" as a cause for her existence. Really, it's just the anthropic principle all over again. Or Jabba's immortality argument: If I arbitrarily assert that the odds of my existence are low, I can reasonably conclude that my existence is special in some way.

I don't really think any mathematically possible object has to exist, at least outside of a textbook. When they add universes to universes in an endless pile, it seems to me to be a dodge, a kind of "all of the above" non-answer.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It occurs to me that someone might object that, if computationalism was false, then all of these universes would contain no conscious agents, merely p-zombies.

Consciousness is an illusion. In reality we are all 'merely' p-zombies.

I guess that might be the case but I would have to wonder why my p-zombie equivalent in a universe following exactly the laws of physics is behaving just as I do but is not conscious.

Because you and your p-zombie are equivalent. This 'consciousness' that you imagine separates you from everything else in the Universe which 'follows exactly the laws of physics' does not exist.

 

[Robin]

@ Robin


Care to prove this?

Yes I could, but I am just a little surprised at being asked, so I think you have maybe misunderstood.

I am saying that there are many more ways my day could pan out if there were random miraculous events then if the laws of physics held all day.

Do you still want me to prove that?

 

[Robin]

As I understand it, your argument can be distilled as follows:...

Umm.. No.

How shall I put this.

That is not even vaguely or tangentially close to what I said. It does not even remotely co-incidentally resemble anything I said.

I think that you may be responding to the wrong thread or something.

 

[Robin]

I don't really think any mathematically possible object has to exist, at least outside of a textbook. When they add universes to universes in an endless pile, it seems to me to be a dodge, a kind of "all of the above" non-answer.

So you agree with me?

 

[Robin]

First of all theprestige, you have completely failed to read the first line in which I referred, not to infinitely many universes, but the the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.

I did not state or even remotely imply that I did not believe there were infinitely many universes.

So feel free not to read what I said but don't make random stuff up and attribute it to me.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I am saying that there are many more ways my day could pan out if there were random miraculous events then if the laws of physics held all day.

Random "miraculous" events happen to you all day long. You just don't recognize them as such.

 

[Robin]

Random "miraculous" events happen to you all day long. You just don't recognize them as such.

Perhaps they do, but I have already taken that into account because I said "noticeably"

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Perhaps they do, but I have already taken that into account because I said "noticeably"

They most definetely are noticeable.

 

[Robin]

As for the "extremely unlikely=false" thing.

I suppose that it is possible that the Universe was created in 6 days three thousand years ago by God and that he created everything in just the order that they say in Genesis and that he created man and woman out of dust and that the whole human race was bred off of them and that the evidence has been carefully doctored to make it seem like there was a 14 billion year old universe and that evolution had taken place.

I suppose that this is possible but I think it so unlikely as to be, in effect, false.

So have it your way. Unlikely. Unlikelier than Ken Ham being right.