Hi Maurizio,

Le 11-déc.-06, à 14:29, Maurizio Morabito a écrit :

Hello everybody

I am a 39-year-old male with a Master in Engineering, a scientific
background and an enduring passion for Cosmology

I have been elaborating something along lines similar to Tegmark's
myself for a few years, albeit starting from a more philosophical point
of view

I appreciate Tegmark's "mathematicalism". But I cannot follow him in the details because he assumes a naive relation between an observer and a "physical" universe. Precisely, if we assume there is a level where we are turing-emulable, I have argued(*) that the physical laws should emerge from a sum on all computations capable of supporting my current computational state. Eventually this makes physics a branch of computer science. At the same time this gives physics a predominant role in the sense that physics is no more related to some special mathematical structure, but to a sort of sum (perhaps a generalized integral à-la Feynman) on all mathematical structures.

My original question was something like this: "Given that I am physical
being, can a tree in my thoughts be any less physical than a tree in my

Are you open to the idea that the tree in the garden is no more physical than the tree in your eyes? A little like if "physical reality" was the result of a video game. Actually I would argue physics emerge from an infinity of "video games" which mathematical existence can be justified already in weak axiomatic of the natural numbers (with addition and multiplication) or from any specification of any universal turing machine. Tegmark is a bit too quick on the mind/body relationship (to make it short).

Here's my current stance on the topic (I presume the titles are

God’s Many Dices (I) - The Science of Parallel Universes (an extended
commentary of Tegmark's):
http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2006/10/23/god%e2%80%99s-many-dices-i- the-science-of-parallel-universes/

God’s Many Dices (II) - The Philosophy of Parallel Universes
(introductory remarks on the philosophical consequences of parallel
http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2006/10/24/god%e2%80%99s-many-dices-ii- the-philosophy-of-parallel-universes/

In the second article I propose an answer to the Theodicea question
(namely, God doesn't just "allow evil" to happen: God allows
"everything" to happen). I haven't come across that before (is anybody
else here interested in the topic?)

What is the difference between "everything exists" (the main line of this list) and God allows everything to happen. What is that "God" and how does the fact that It allows everything to happen solve the "theodicea question". Is a God allowing Darfur "good" ? Does "God" allows everything to happen, or is "God" not able not to allow everything to happen (in that case your "God" has no relationship with the Christian God and with the traditional theodicea question, as some have reminded me recently in the list.

Anyway, having just joined I'll now lurk for a while

You are welcome,


Blog (English): http://omnologos.wordpress.com
Blog (Italiano): http://mauriziomorabito.wordpress.com


(*) 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 

Reply via email to