On 05/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TT: All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in
the same way. Our universe is one of those possible universes. Our
universe exists independant of any humans or any observers.
DN: But here at the heart of your argument is the confusion again over
language. If we grant that a mathematically possible universe exists
'independently' (i.e. other than as a sub-structure of the A-Universe) it -
and all consequences flowing from it - must exist self-relatively. This is
the crucial entailment of 'independent' existence, as we discussed before.
And it exposes the confusion of the two distinct senses of 'independent'.
The first sense is of course that an independent universe does not 'depend'
on any observers it instantiates to grant it existence (i.e. they don't
'cause' it to exist). It's in just this sense that it's 'independent' or
self-relative, and this is the sense you rely on.
But the second and crucial sense flows directly out of this 'self-relative
independence': which is that any self-relative universe capable of
generating the necessary structure simply *entails* the existence of
'observers' (i.e. self-relative sub-structures). IOW, self-relation is what
observation *is*. It's in precisely this crucial sense that an
'independently existing universe' is not 'independent of observation'. On
the contrary: it *entails* observation. And of course our existence as
observers in self-relation to the A-Universe demonstrates this 'dependency'
in precisely this critical sense.
> David Nyman skrev:
> > You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
> > important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
> 1. The relation 1+1=2 is always true. It is true in all universes.
> Even if a universe does not contain any humans or any observers. The
> truth of 1+1=2 is independent of all observers.
> 2. If you have a set of rules and an initial condition, then there
> exist a universe with this set of rules and this initial condition.
> Because it is possible to compute a new situation from a situation, and
> from this new situation it is possible to compute another new situation,
> and this can be done for ever. This unlimited set of situations will be
> a universe that exists independent of all humans and all observers.
> Noone needs to make these computations, the results of the computations
> will exist anyhow.
> 3. All mathmatically possible universes exists, and they all exist in
> the same way. Our universe is one of those possible universes. Our
> universe exists independant of any humans or any observers.
> 4. For us humans are the universes that contain observers more
> interesting. But there is no qualitaive difference between universes
> with observers and universes without observers. They all exist in the
> same way. The GoL-universes (every initial condition will span a
> separate universe) exist in the same way as our universe. But because
> we are humans, we are more intrested in universes with observers, and we
> are specially interested in our own universe. But otherwise there is
> noting special with our universe.
> Torgny Tholerus
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