**From:** *geodesicallyincomplete@warpmail.net*

**Date:** Sun Apr 27 2003 - 08:29:54 MDT

**Next message:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universe"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**In reply to:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universe"**Next in thread:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universe"**Reply:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universe"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> wrote:

*> At Level II, I must confess I don't understand the whole "chaotic
*

*> perpetual inflation" thing well enough to grok but I'd guess
*

*> "countable".
*

Tegmark mentions in his paper that the number of Level II universes is

countable if inflation is not past-eternal, and uncountable if inflation

is past-eternal. I think the former is considered more likely.

However, as Eliezer points out, even if there are only countably many

universes in our Level IV universe, there is probably at least one Level

IV universe with uncountably many universes in it (for example, one

described by past-eternal inflation).

Eliezer also mentions a diversity of aleph_2, but this would depend on

whether the continuum hypothesis ("the cardinality of the continuum

(reals) is aleph_1") is true. This made me think about a confusing issue.

If every Level IV universe is a formal system, and the continuum

hypothesis is independent of the other axioms of set theory, then it

might be that our universe is described by set theory with CH, or by set

theory without CH. If we could somehow measure experimentally (using

esoteric math-tech) the cardinality of the continuum in our world, then

if the CH was among the axioms, we'd find aleph_1. If one of the axioms

was "c == aleph_5", we'd find aleph_5. But the possibility of doing such

an experiment should not depend on whether there is such an axiom -- so

what happens if our universe is described by set theory with no axioms

that determine the cardinality of the continuum?

I'm sure I'm overlooking many subtle interpretational issues here -- when

discussing this sort of thing I always feel as if carefully avoiding a

giant murky swamp of decision theory and probability theory and anthropic

reasoning and reference classes and SSAs and SIAs and mathematical logic

and set-theoretical paradoxes.

Keep it complex,

Nus

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own

**Next message:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universe"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**In reply to:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universe"**Next in thread:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universe"**Reply:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universe"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT
*