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.
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at