[Bob Cain]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

I rather like the AUH.
IMO it makes a lot more sense to ask 'why just this' rather than 'why
this'.
How does AUH address the former rather than the latter?
Well, one of the constraints that must be imposed on the selection of
all possible universes is conditions for intelligent life to perceive
them. So there is obviously an anthropic selection effect for starters.

I was remaining within what Tegmark calls Level I. He says that with
inflation (which requires infinite extent as it is formulated) and
quantum fluctuation there are bound to be instances and repeats of
this or any possible quantum state of a Hubble volume within the Level
I universe. The only constraints that are imposed at Level I are the
values we see for the fundamental constants. Level I assumes that the
universe is isotropic in that regard. Since we live in a
demonstration of an adequate state, it was inevitable. That may be
what the "strong" anthropic principle requires, I don't remember.

As I read Tegmark, there is no need at all for anthropic selection
since, one way or another, all possible states are "explored"
(redundantly) even at Level I. Selection implies a narrowing,
inflation implies the opposite.

BTW, thanks again for that link.

For example, simple 'triangle universes' would not be complex enough to
give rise to intelligence.

Whooosh again. :-)

If Tegmark is correct, then there are an infinite number of versions of
this universe, and it starts to look a bit like the Many Worlds
Interpretation (but is apparently unrelated).

Indeed. He describes four levels of infinities, each of a different
nature and containing all of the levels below. At each level there
are an infinite number of branches containing exact copies of our
Hubble volume. MW is level III.

We're a side effect.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein