# Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

`On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>wrote:`
```
>  On 2/13/2011 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  What do you think the chances are that any random object in
>>>>>>> Plato's heaven, or any random Turing machine will support intelligent
>>>>>>> life?
>>>>>>> 1 in 10, 1 in 1000, 1 in a billion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Zero.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Does that allow us to argue:
>>>
>>> 1) A universe selected from an uncountably infinite number of
>>> possibilities has measure
>>> 0
>>> 2) Our universe exists so it has measure>0
>>> 3) Our universe is not selected from uncountably infinite
>>> possibilities
>>> 4) MUH indicates any universe must be selected from uncountable
>>> infinite possibilities (since all
>>> of maths includes the real line, etc)
>>> 5) MUH is false.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  Hmmm.  I think we argue that objects in Plato's heaven and Turing
>> machines are not the right kind of things to support life.
>
>
>
> I am very puzzled by this statement.  You could help me understand by
>
> Why couldn't there be an accurate simulation of life on a Turing machine?
>
>
> Because a Turing machine is an abstraction.  If you mean a realization of a
> Turing machine, then I suppose there could be a simulation of life on it.
>
>
>
> How can entities within a universe that exists in Plato's heaven
> distinguish it from a universe that does not?
>
>
> I doubt that Plato's heaven exists.  So no universes would exist in it.
>
> Brent
>
>

Exists is a funny word.  It seems to embody knowledge and opinion from one
observer's viewpoint based on their own limited experiences and interactions
within their local portion of reality.  If Plato's heaven is such a thing
that contains all possible structures, does the fact that it contains all
possible structures hold true whether or not it exists?  If there are
universes existing abstractly inside Plato's heaven, and some of those
universes contain conscious observers, does ascribing the property of
non-existence to Plato's heaven or to those universes make those observers
not conscious, or is the abstraction enough?  What properties can something
which is non-existent have?

It seems there are two choices: 1. Things which are non-existent can have
other properties besides non-existence.  E.g., a non-existent universe has
atoms, stars, worlds, and people on some of those worlds.  Or 2.
Non-existent things cannot have any other properties besides non-existence.
It sounds like you belong to this second camp.

However, this seems to lead immediately to mathematical realism.  As there
are objects with definite objectively explorable properties in math.  7's
primality and parity are properties of 7.  But how can 7 have properties if
it does not exist?  If non-existent things can have properties, why can't
consciousness be one of those properties?  What is the difference between a
non-existent brain experiencing a sunset and an existent brain experiencing
a sunset?  Please explain as precisely as possible what it means for
something to not exist.

Jason

No facts about it if it is non existent?

--
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