On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >It is not used in Maudlin's argument, but in your extension to handle
> >multiversal supervenience.
> You might make this precise, because I don't see the point. But the
> best answer to your concrete multiverse argument, is that such
> multiverse has to be robust to handle the "universal
> counterfactuals", but then it contains a UD*, and we are back at the
> step 7, and *in that case* the step seven is enough for the reversal
> physics/mathematical computer science (arithmetic).
> Bruno

It is true I was thinking in terms of a multiverse big enough to
contain a UD*, and I agree that steps 1-7 are sufficient for the
reversal here.

My problem, perhaps, is a lack of intuition of how to push through the
MGA when the multiverse is not big enough to support a universal
dovetailer. Does that last sentence even make sense? If not, then the
MGA only applies to a single universe, in which case my critique
simply doesn't apply.



Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

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