On 2/9/2011 7:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

How do you define existence? For something to exist must it be something you can see and feel, or would you say it has to be something that can be studied objectively? Would you agree that for something to have objective properties, it must exist? Clearly there are things humans have discovered which we can't see or feel, but we think they exist because we see their effects: wind, dark matter, black holes, etc. Or theories suggest their existence: extra-solar life, strings, and so on.

I would argue that mathematical objects exist because this universe's existence does not make sense in isolation. Imagine you were in a windowless bathroom. Should you doubt the existence of the rest of the world because you cannot see it, or would there be clues to support the existence of things outside that room? The finely tuned physical constants, laws, dimensions, etc. of this universe suggest that this universe is one of many, perhaps one among all possible structures. Just as we see the affects of wind and know it exists, one can look at the fine tuning of this universe and believe in the existence of all possible structures. Every such structure is a mathematical entity. If you doubt the existence of mathematical objects, how do you explain fine tuning? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe )


Fine-tuning is a very speculative and poorly supported peg to hang existence on:



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to