Saibal wrote:  (complete message below for the FORers)

>Can't we prove that stars (and for that matter anything we observe)  exist
>in at least some universes?  

But does "some universes" exists ? To tell you frankly I have a problem with
the word "universe". I guess you take it as meaning the set (let us say) of
all what exists. But then I want to distinguish things which "really" exists
from things which are only distinguished from a relative observer point of view.
Tell me how you draw the line. Is there a line?


>Since we have identical copies in those
>universes, it really doesn't matter.

Why ? Suppose I love Moscow and that I am duplicated from Brussels to both
Washington and Moscow. And suppose that after that event I wake up in Washington.
I hope you understand I am not happy. From time to time I get consolating
words by my doppelbrother phones from Moscow. But still ...

It is important for the stellist and galaxies lovers that stars and galaxies
remains "existing" in the "universes" as seen by the "really vast" majority of
their vast number of doppelbrothers and sisters ... This gives the degree of
solidity. It makes worth acting following personal thought, respecting the
ten thousand counterfactuals and apparent causalities.

The moral I would draw from MW or comp (you know I think comp -> MW), is that
if you are enthusiast (let us say) and if you want to *stay* enthusiast, then
you have no better means that trying to share that enthusiasm with the most vast
possible collection of doppelbrothersisters. No?

Bruno

=================== Saibal post:
>Bruno wrote (on the FoR list):
>``Lee Corbin wrote (answering Russell Standish):
>
>>> >I can prove that God sees stars.  Clearly a God which can see
>>> >stars is greater than a God that cannot see stars, and God is
>>> >'that which nothing greater than' can be conceived, and since
>>> >we can conceive of a God which can see stars, it follows that
>>> >God can see stars.  Q.E.D.
>
>I said (probably to quickly):
>
>>> You are using some implicite hypothesis here: mainly that stars
>>> exists, isnt it. Because if God see stars and if there is no stars
>>> poor little God is hallucinated.
>>> i'm afraid Russell Standish is right here.
>>> If God see stars and if God exists, then indeed stars exists, but
>>> nobody has ever give any evidence for stars or gods. Alas.
>>> (Independently of the question of the existence of Gods, or stars).
>>>
>>> You can only prove (following indeed St. Anselm) that if God exists
>>> and if stars exists, then God sees stars.
>
>Charles Goodwin comments:
>
>>Who says there's no evidence for the existence of stars? I for one am a
>>convinced stellist and firmly believe that stars exist. (Including the
>Sun -
>>it's bigger than me so I don't argue with it.)
>
>I certainly agree we have strong evidence that stars and galaxies are
>relatively stable heroin in the most probable stories we share.
>
>But this means that we *bet* (inductively) on stars (as a part of a
>world-view we are betting). St. Anselm was  trying to *prove*
>(deductively)
>the existence of God. You told me that
>you can prove that God sees stars. For that purpose you must prove
>the existence of stars (to bet on it is not enough). Or you just mean
>that God can imagine stars, as seen by us in some story? Or do you think
>God shares our story?
>
>BTW, do you know that Godel wrote a formalisation in the modal logic
>system S5 of St. Anselm proof of the existence of God? (I'm not sure
>there is any evidence that Godel takes his proof seriously, but it is
>a nice little piece of exact and very modest theology. See Vol 3 of
>the complete work of Godel edited by Feferman & Al.).
>My opinion? Well I don't believe in S5 :-)
>
>Can't we prove that stars (and for that matter anything we observe)  exist
>in at least some universes?  Since we have identical copies in those
>universes, it really doesn't matter.
>
>Saibal

 

Reply via email to