# Re: Only Existence is necessary?

```Then we, who are in his image, can recognize that "There is...".  The
purest form of this recognition, I believe, is mathematics.  Of course
I'm a mathematician, so I'm biased.  :)```
```
Tom

Tom Caylor wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> I wrote the following before you wrote this post, but I think it
> addresses it somewhat.
>
> My two cents is again to say that mathematics is about invariance.
> Platonia is about invariance.  Invariance is even more fundamental than
> number.  Numbers are defined by invariance.  The number 3 is the
> invariant attribute of all sets of 3.
>
> I take it that Bruno's existence is just the "interference pattern" of
> computations, as I think he sometimes puts it.  According to him, I
> think the ether that we swim in (exist in) is computations, an ether of
> consistency.  John Barrow in his book "Pi in the Sky" brought up
> the possibility that we are part of Platonia, but he concluded that
> this didn't make sense.  My opinion is that it doesn't make sense
> if Platonia is only numbers, i.e. computation.  This is for the very
> reason you bring up, Stephen.  An interference pattern requires a
> particular point of view.  But if all points of view are equally
> unspecial (modulo consistency), then we are back to the "why
> something instead of nothing?" problem ("why this particular point
> of view that I am experiencing, rather than another point of view?").
>  Something has to break the symmetry of the zero information pool.
> "Interference patterns" are not sufficient to break the symmetry.
> (Along the same line of reasoning, even an anthropic principle is not
> sufficient.)  Summing the interference patterns over all points-of-view
> results in zero.  I've taken my answer to this from somewhere outside
> myself.  There has to be someone with universal power to say "Let
> there be...".
>
> Tom
>
> Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> >     I think that you are bring up a good point but I must ask about the
> > nature of "invariance"! The notion of invariance involves a subject to which
> > the invariance obtains. If there is no such an subject, what meaning does
> > the notion of a invariance have?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_%28mathematics%29
> >
> >
> > Onward!
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Caylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Everything List" <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary?
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
> > I've been thinking about Platonia lately.  I've just finished reading
> > John Barrow's "Pi in the Sky" book, and he seems to have gotten wrapped
> > around the axle in regard to mathematics and Platonia.  I think that
> > mathematics is not primarily about numbers.  Mathematics is about
> > invariance.  Invariance is not about any *thing* (existence)
> > specifically.  Perhaps this thought can shed light on this somehow?

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

```