I've read the paper and still am reading the paper ...
I'm writing down my first thoughts, I was surprised you used the "free
of baggage" argument to argue that ERH ==> MUH, I would rather have
thought of a simulation kind of argument here but nevertheless,
Also, since there's no observational difference between ERH and a
Copenhagen interpretation of ERH, I do not see any kind of conflict
there either ?
Also, one big question I have after reading your paper, what is the
TOE or what would you consider to be the TOE ?
I guess it would be the initial conditions and everything which
influences our universe (even if we can not observe it ourselves).
Because in some way, the simple statement that everything mathematical
is also physical, is already a TOE as it explains everything.
Finally, if anyone would have a rigorous proof that the existence of
mathematics implies human existence (which I believe must be
possible), I would be very interested to hear that.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at