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

```
On Feb 14, 7:24 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > answering the following questions:
>
> > 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?```
```
It's a correct definition 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?

Thing that aren't real can't have  real properties, but
hypothetical things have hypothetical properties

> 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.

3. Hypothetical things have hypothetical properties.

> However, this seems to lead immediately to mathematical realism.  As there
> are objects with definite objectively explorable properties in math.

Hypothetical properties can be reasoned about. If I said you
had 3 stakes and 5 phials of holy water, you could tell me
how many vampires you could kill. But vampires don't exist.
Defnitiness is epistemological and descriptive, not ontological.

> 7's
> primality and parity are properties of 7.  But how can 7 have properties if
> it does not exist?

In the way that vampires have the property of not liking garlic.

> If non-existent things can have properties, why can't
> consciousness be one of those properties?

The consciousness of a hypothetical conscious being is only
a hypothetical consciousness.

>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.

That's not what needs explaining. What needs explaining is
that people tend to use the word "property" interchangably
for a) a characteristic predicated of something as a matter of theory
or definition b) a characteristic of something that is a discoverable
part of the fabric of the world.

--
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