Hello again Joel.

I think I can agree with you, in a pragmatic sense, with what you state
below.
I agree that any useful TOE should be able to be implemented on a (large
enough) computer. This computation can then SIMULATE the relevant or
important aspects of the universe we observe, or all aspects of other
possible universes, with their APPARENT real-number continua and infinite
sets. Godel's theorem prevents us from simulating all aspects of our
universe.

Adopting that perspective, we should be able to justify that a simulation of
our universe does not appear overly fine-tuned. At least that would suit my
aesthetic tastes.

Fred

>
> I'm simply trying to get people to confront the truth that we humans are
> incapable of devising Theories of Everything that are NOT run on a
universal
> computer.  That's all.
>
> Many will say, "Of course!  We know that!".
>
> And then they go on, as if nothing happened, talking about the
probabilities
> of items in infinite sets, and "independent tosses of a fair coin", and
> "quantum indeterminacy", and "the continuum of the real numbers", as if
> these things exist!
>
> If we cannot program it... it's not a Theory of EVERYTHING.  It's just a
> description.
>
> Let us take the realist approach and focus on the things we can actually
> compute fully.
>
> Joel
>
>
>

Reply via email to