On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:04 AM, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Feb 16, 8:27 am, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > I agree. Although it's interesting that some people with synasthesia > > > > apparently perceive numbers as having various perceptual properties. > > > > > Some people "perceive" pink elephants too. However, other people don't > > > "perceive" them , leading cynics to suppose that they are not > > > really being perceived at all. > > > > The guy who reported seeing the digits of pi like a vast landscape also > > receited over 20,000 digits from memory. That should lend a little more > > credence to his claims. > > Which are what? I don't think *he* is claiming numbers objectively > exist. And isn't the fact that all synaesthetes visualise them > differently > somehat contrary to *that* claim. > > > Sure. Horses are real and unicorns aren't. Didn't you know that? > > > > Unless you've visited every time period in every corner of reality how > can > > you assert unicrons don't exist? > > The same way I assert everything: the evidence I have is good enough. > > >The fossile record might suggest they have > > never lived on this planet but that hardly rules out their existence > > everywhere. > > > > "Does XYZ exist?" > > "Let me look around... I can't see it right now, it must not exist!" > > > > Instead we should take a more humble approach: > > > > "I've looked around and cannot see it here, it probably doesn't exist > here, > > however I have no idea whether or not it exists in places I cannot see or > > have not looked." > > > > I think Bayesian inference: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference#Evidence_and_changing... > > Is particularly useful in answering questions relating to existence. The > > question is, what prior probability would you set to a proposition such > as > > "Other universes not visible to us exist". 1Z and Brent would seem to > > assign a rather low probability, but that just means a higher threshold > of > > evidence will be required to convince them. Lacking any evidence at all, > > the least biased prior probability to begin with is 0.5. If some > evidence, > > for fine tuning for example, accumulates then you should adjust your > assumed > > probability that the proposition "Other universes not visible to us > exist" > > is true. > > > > Are you aware of a better or more fair way of addressing such a question? > > > > I am a fallibilist. You are preaching to the converted. > > Okay it seems we have a common foundation we agree on. Can you explain why you have confidence in the unreality of other possible universes rather than uncertainty? What evidence have you seen for or against that proposition?
If more evidence accumulated for Fine-Tuning, would that be sufficient for you to believe it is probably true that universes ruled by other laws exist also? Do you think the prior probability that "other physical universes exist" should be greater than the prior probability that "mathematical objects exist"? If so, why and to what degree? Finally, do you see any difference between "all possible (self-consistent) universes exist" vs. "all logically possible objects in math exist"? Jason -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
