RECORD
Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory?
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology · Submitted 3 Apr 1997
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim We find that it is far from clear that this simple theory, which has no free parameters whatsoever, is observationally ruled out.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
We discuss some physical consequences of what might be called ``the ultimate ensemble theory'', where not only worlds corresponding to say different sets of initial data or different physical constants are considered equally real, but also worlds ruled by altogether different equations. The only postulate in this theory is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically, by which we mean that in those complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ``real'' world. We find that it is far from clear that this simple theory, which has no free parameters whatsoever, is observationally ruled out. The predictions of the theory take the form of probability distributions for the outcome of experiments, which makes it testable. In addition, it may be possible to rule it out by comparing its a priori predictions for the observable attributes of nature (the particle masses, the dimensionality of spacetime, etc) with what is observed.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | We discuss some physical consequences of what might be called ``the ultimate ensemble theory'', where not only worlds corresponding to say different sets of initial data or different physical constants are considered equally real, but also worlds ruled by altogether different equations. | contribution 0.76 | 0.21 | 0.07 | speculative 0.88 |
| s1 | The only postulate in this theory is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically, by which we mean that in those complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ``real'' world. | contribution 0.47 | 0.13 | 0.09 | asserted 0.96 |
| s2 | We find that it is far from clear that this simple theory, which has no free parameters whatsoever, is observationally ruled out. | result 0.96 | 0.90 | 0.43 | asserted 0.87 |
| s3 | The predictions of the theory take the form of probability distributions for the outcome of experiments, which makes it testable. | result 0.44 | 0.59 | 0.09 | asserted 1.00 |
| s4 | In addition, it may be possible to rule it out by comparing its a priori predictions for the observable attributes of nature (the particle masses, the dimensionality of spacetime, etc) with what is observed. | future work 0.38 | 0.27 | 0.09 | hedged possibility 1.00 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v2
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
We discuss some physical consequences of what might be called ``the ultimate ensemble theory'', where not only worlds corresponding to say different sets of initial data or different physical constants are considered equally real, but also worlds ruled by altogether different equations. The only postulate in this theory is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically, by which we mean that in those complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ``real'' world. We find that it is far from clear that this simple theory, which has no free parameters whatsoever, is observationally ruled out. The predictions of the theory take the form of probability distributions for the outcome of experiments, which makes it testable. In addition, it may be possible to rule it out by comparing its a priori predictions for the observable attributes of nature (the particle masses, the dimensionality of spacetime, etc) with what is observed.
Human review
References
How the literature uses it
9 arXiv papers cite this in 10 sentences
Papers citing it · 7 sentences without a confident label
Cites it as background 3 papers
-
In the parameter space, one then looks for regions that could be similar to our universe and may possibly be congenial to the creation and sustenance of intelligent life [ref] .
Congeniality Bounds on Quark Masses from Nucleosynthesis · Introduction · 0.96
-
An enormous landscape of vacua would be a natural home for ideas of the multiverse and environmental selection [ref] .
TASI Lectures on Remnants from the String Landscape · Environmental Selection · 0.82
-
Some recent work on the subject is described in [ref] and in [ref] .
A Possible Approach to Inclusion of Space and Time in Frame Fields of Quantum Representations of Real and Complex Numbers · Introduction · 0.99
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.