[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Georges Quénot wrote:
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>> Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
>>>> I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
>>>> you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
>>>> respect the fact). By the way I am not sure I really :-)
>>>> adopt it either.
>>>> But can you make a difference between adopting it and
>>>> being able to consider that it might make sense (whether
>>>> it is true or not) and conduct (or follow) reflections
>>>> in a context in which it would be conjectured as true?
>>> I don't think Mathematical Monism makes sense
>> OK. Just consider that it does make sense to some people.
>>> (to be precise it
>>> is either incoherent, in asserting that only some mathematical
>>> objects exist, or inconsistent with observation in asserting that
>>> they all do)..
>> I do not see how it can be inconsistent with observation.
> If every mathematical structure exists , then mathematical
> structures consisting of a counterpart of me plus a "Harry
> Potter" universe exist. Yet this is not observed. Of course
> that might be coincidence.
I see at least three possibilities:
1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
equations of which a "Harry Potter universe" includes
a counterpart of you.
2. There may well exist a "Harry Potter universe" that
includes a counterpart of you but it is not causaly
related to our universe (too far for instance) and
this is why we cannot observe it.
3. You actually are in a "Harry Potter universe" but it
just happened that you are not a sorcerer and you must
know that in "Harry Potter universes", non sorcerers
are prevented fromm observing magical events.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at