(April 4, 2014 at 7:52 am)Alex K Wrote:(April 4, 2014 at 7:45 am)Heywood Wrote: What is meant by "catastrophic". Is the catastrophe the non existence of a daughter universe or does it mean it exists but not in a state where emergent complexity can arise?
I think they mean the at least latter - no atoms etc, but also possibly more severe, e.g. recollapse before there is sufficient time to form solar systems etc.
Also are they talking about it being probable that just 1 parameter will be near the catastrophic boundary(which we aren't even sure what that is) or are they talking about it being probable that all or most of the parameters will near the catastrophic boundary?
Correct me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that you provided this paper as evidence that in multiverse models....most daughter universes will still be capable of producing long chains of emergent complexity.
I don't think this paper shows this at all.
Again we are back to having no objective reason to favor B over A while indifference remains stoically objective.
