Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

>  Bruno Marchal skrev:Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is not primitive in 
>> my
>> opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
>> perhaps). As David said, this is arithmetical realism.
>  Yes, you can see a universe as the same thing as a model.
>  When you have a (finite) set of rules, you will always get a universe 
> from that set of rules, by just applying those rules an unlimited 
> number of times.  And the result of these rules is existing, in the 
> same way as our universe is existing.

The problem here is that an effective syntactical description of a 
intended model ("universe") admits automatically an infinity of non 
isomorphic models  (cf Lowenheim-Skolem theorems, Godel, ...).

>  Our universe is the result of some set of rules.  The interesting 
> thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.

Assuming comp, I don't find plausible that "our universe" can be the 
result of some set of rules. Even without comp the "arithmetical 
universe" or arithmetical truth (the "ONE" attached to the little Peano 
Arithmetic Lobian machine) cannot be described by finite set of rules.
The Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) shows that even a cup of coffee 
is eventually described by the probabilistic interferences of an 
infinity of computations occurring in the Universal deployment (UD*), 
which by the way explains why we cannot really duplicate exactly any 
piece of apparent matter (comp-no cloning).
It is an open question if those theoretical interferences correspond to 
the quantum one. Studying the difference between the comp interference 
and the quantum interferences gives a way to measure experimentally the 
degree of plausibility of comp.



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 

Reply via email to