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