Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum A Single Universe or a Multiverse?

DAM: "With respect to the why are were here versus there question it basically comes down to the fact that we are where we are and we are not where we are not."

Dan, you can say the same about the pressure in a vessel. It is in a way the principial difference between thermodynamics and statistics. The pressure is the one that is and not the one that isn't. And yet you can find a more "fundamental" explanation of why that is indeed so.

DAM: "Now if you wish to postulate that there are an infinite number of "you" that is philosophical mumbo jumbo because you^1 thorugh you^n are not in contact with each other by any means known or theoretical."

True, but that is beyond the point of this modelling.

DAM: "In fact before you could even postulate that the different you's were "you" you would need to define exactly what "you" is (or is it are?)."

Well, Dan, I kind of did define that, if you look closely. The problem is that at this time we don't exactly know what that means.

DAM: "With respect to simplicity versus complexity as things become more fundamental ... I would suggest that consideration be given to the fact that so far as I know no part of physics can not be correlated with information theory. And I have no reason to believe that the entire universe, as we see it, can not be constructed from zeros and ones. Remember fractals create infinite complexity in finite space. The complexity to which you refer may only be obfuscation.The complexity of all of chemistry comes down to just a handful of very simple statements of fact."

Dan, this is what I tried to say, if you look closer. We have certain building blocks (fundamental/complexity refers only to the buiding blocks, not to the ensuing structure - I haven't even begun to address the issue of structure, although Ibliss did so), but we don't have them all. In fact we have so few that we may not be able to draw even partial conclusion that could withstand even a slight change into the underluing assumptions.
I was trying to make the comparison between inorganic chemistry and biology, but it misfired.