Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Le Vendredi 24 Mars 2006 13:07, 1Z a écrit :
> > Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > > Le Jeudi 23 Mars 2006 22:39, 1Z a écrit :
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > He has proven beyond doubt, using Godellian arguments, that some
> > > > > numbers or intrinsically random .ie. that there is NO formulaic
> > > > > prescription that will reach that number from any starting point.
> > > >
> > > > If Mathematical Platonism is true, they exist anyway !
> > > >
> > > > What is not clear is why equations are important. Phsyics uses them,
> > > > but
> > > > physics is based on the idea that some logivally possible laws are
> > > > real and others aren't, not on the idea that everymathemtical object
> > > > is equally real.
> > >
> > > I disagree, physics is based on the idea that the world we *perceive* is
> > > predictable/understandable. As you are *not* in every mathematical
> > > object, you can't perceive more than the world you are embedded into.
> >
> > That would follow if "word" is taken in a physical sense, but it
> > far from clear that it would still be the case mathematically.
> >
> > If the set {1,2,3,4}
> > exists platonically, and the set
> > {1023,1024,1025,1026}
> > all the intersections and unions thereof exist, e.g. the set
> > (1,2,1023,1024}
> > exists (for all that it doesn't seem particularly intuitive).
> >
> > Likewise if
> > {<mathematical description of me>, <mathematical description of my
> > world>}
> > exists, and the set,
> >
> > {<mathematical description of Harry Potter>, <mathematical description
> > of Harry Potter's world>}
> >
> > exists, then the set
> >
> > {<mathematical description of me>, <mathematical description of Harry
> > Potter's world>}
> > exists.
>
> I agree, but there is a difference to say that your existense is consistent
> when spanning over these universe and to say that you know with the
> information available that you are in a HP universe.

I am not sure that you mean. I have no empirical evidence that I am in
a HP universe. MM suggests I must be. MM contradicts my experience,
so I reject MM.

>  Yes you are consistent
> with a universe with real sorcerer in it, yet till the time you are not aware
> of it you cannot say I'm in a HP universe, because you are only consistent
> with it, you would be able to say it when you would get more information
> (hence there will be a you who is in a HP consistent history (because you now
> it's real) and another you who's still in the fuzzy set HP/~HP.

But they're all the same, in themselves ! Again, you are assuming a
degree
of separation that cannot arise from purely mathematical
considerations.

> > >That doesn't
> > > mean other "laws" could not rule other "parallel" universes.
> >
> > We've been here before: if there is a law that parallel universes do
> > not overlap,
> > that is itself only one mathematical possibility, and there must be
> > other regions
> > of the Mathematical Multiverse where it doesn't apply.
>
> I do not see why histories could not overlap, note the whole point of the
> computational theory is that *you* (at time t) are part of all computations
> (infinite number of) that goes throught your state... so in this definition
> you always are part of an infinite superposition/overlapping of history
> consistent with your current knowledge of the world.

If I am in a in a superposition/overlapping, it isn't  consistent
with my (the real me typing this) knowledge, because I don't
experience anything like that. MM makes predictions that are
not born out by my experience.

> Quentin


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to