Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 16-mars-06, à 14:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > > > No, because all mathematical objects, as mathematical objects > > exist (or don't exit) on an equal basis. Yet the universe is only > > isomorphic to one of them. It has real existence, as opposed > > to the other mathematical objects which are only abstract. > > > I thought I was understanding your last comments on my post, i.e: > http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/ > and I was preparing some comment, which can't make sense with > your present remark to Peter D Jones. > > What do you mean by "real existence"? > What do you mean by a non abstract mathematical object? > > It would help to know if you have studied the Universal Dovetailer > Argument, which shows that by making the comp hyp, the "physical > universe" cannot be isomorphic to a mathematical object, because "the > physical universe" can only emerge on an infinity of "overlapping > computations" as seen from some first person (plural) point of views,
The argument does not show the "the physical universe" can only emerge on an infinity of "overlapping computations", as such. It might show this given a series of assumptions-- that we are nothing but hardwareless computations, that the "physical universe" is a solipsistic illusion, and so on. > and then (this is non trivial) it can be shown that this is not > captured by any mathematical objects. The reason is that the whole > collection of mathematical objects cannot be itself a mathematical > object, but physical appearances emerges from inside from a "measure" > on that undefinable whole. > With some set theories like Quine NF (New Foundations) it looks like > the whole mathematical universe could be a mathematical objects. But > then this shows that NF will got problem with comp. Maybe what *that* means is that COMP is wrong. > The notion mathematical wholeness is very tricky (to say the least). > Actually, without comp, I have no clues how to give sense to such > wholeness. > I persist finding rather unclear the use you are making of the term > "universe", even in your monist and immaterialist (if I got you right) > sense. > > Bruno > > PS take your time to answer. I will be busy. Also next week I will > present the Universal Dovetailer Argument in London; cf: > http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg08749.html > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
