Re: Closer To Truth interview

--- In [email protected], Brett Hall <brhalluk@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On 24/05/2013, at 22:19, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote
> > 
> > 
> > --- In [email protected], "hibbsa" <hibbsa@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> Snipped
> > 
> > I suppose another possible communication problem would be in terms of how same-universe duplicate objects were defined. The best way to kick that aside, I should think, is to regard the definition of the object as a set of emergent properties in their own right. That way, if you wish, it would seem feasible to tie the transformation of the object to those emergent properties (say...if you required the object to be defined in terms of emergent properties resulting from a transformation of itself....there's probably a fine way to do it). 
> > 
> > So that's the basic question. 
> > 
> 
> What is?
> > 
> > But this is the sort of stream of knock-on questions that seems to fall out of it: 
> > 
> > Is it even possible for a multiverse history to break free of its emergent properties, in a way that couldn't be described by the relevant single universe statistics of that same object for those same emergent properties?
> > 
> > If it is possible, then is it possible for a multiverse history to be a physically impossible occurrence in this universe? 
> > 
> No.
> > 
> > If that is possible, is this because a law of physics would be broken? 
> > 
> > If that is the reason, is the law of physics broken in the multiverse history it does occur in? 
> > 
> > If not then do the laws of physics vary in the multiverse, *differently* to their variance across this universe? 
> > 
> They do not vary in the multiverse. The laws of quantum theory describe the multiverse.
> > 
> > if so, are there variations of the laws of physics in the multiverse that are impossible in this universe? 
> > 
> > if so, is that because a higher law of physics would be broken in this universe? 
> > 
> > and so on and so forth....as what seems to be an endless loop that goes up through each level of abstraction. 
> > 
> I don't think there is an endless loop. My guess is your questions, as posed in your post, have straight forward answers.
> 
> Brett.
> > 

Most definitely, one way or the other. 

For it to go in the direction I think you meant, what will be required - I think - is reasoning from Deutsch thMultivereasoning from Deutsch demonstrating macroscopically divergent universes are theoretically/logically possible. 

The reason I think the burden of proof has shifted to Deutsch and MWI is because on my reading we've already gone a long way toward agreeing that for some arbitrary object, the multiverse histories are constrained to generate the same emergent propertites. 

The nature of the emergence we are talking about, means - anything we can say about an arbitrary object, we can probably say the same across all reasonable/interesting scenarios. 

If the reasoning isn't there ...could be neither is the multiverse.