Tom wrote:

Perhaps there needs to be a new thread for the new topic (Game of Life,etc.).It seems my original inquiry has been left unanswered, but this is mypoint. My challenge was that multiverse theory is just pulling things outof thin air just as much as any other metaphysical theory. At each pointin the history of science, science needs an external foundation to standon, and by definition this is extra-science. Cluttering up the picture with"Everything" doesn't solve the problem at all. The multiverse is atautology. Attributing meaning to it is a statement of faith.Tom

`What about answering your question in terms of mathematical platonism? It`

`seems to me that even if I try to imagine an absolute "nothing", it would`

`still somehow be true that 1+1=2, even if there was nothing to count and no`

`one to be conscious of this fact...the statement "1+1=2" means something`

`like "it is true that *if* you had 1 object and added 1 object you would`

`have 2 objects", and that statement is true regardless of whether you`

`actually have any objects. But once we say that mathematical forms have some`

`sort of necessary existence, we can view our universe (or our`

`observer-moment) as just one of many possible platonic mathematical forms,`

`perceived "from the inside". But mathematical platonism assumes that all`

`possible mathematical forms exist, and so they should seem just as real to`

`any observers they contain, leading to the "Everything" view.`

Jesse