On 09 May 2012, at 02:36, Pierz wrote:

The problem is that physicists have not yet succeed in marrying QMand GR, which is needed to get a quantum theory of space-time. Youcan bet on strings or on loop gravity though, or on the Dewitt-Wheeler equation, which, actually make physical time vanishingcompletely from the big picture. It is an internal parameter only.Yes, none of which I pretend to understand any more than any guy whoreads all the popular expositions of such theories. But it seemshighly dubious to me for Krauss to even present a theory thatpretends to explain something as fundamental as something fromnothing given the absence of a QM-GR unification. After all, as goodas QM and GR are at predicting stuff in their domains, we know thatneither is right! It's an overreach.It is different for the UD. Its existence is a theorem in any theoryof everything, like this one:classical logic + 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) -> x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x or in this one: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz)Yeah OK fine, so maybe I'm one turtle too high! Let's just sayarithemetic then. Why does it exist? Because.

`In this case, we can explain and prove that we cannot explain them`

`from less. You provably need some understanding of the numbers to get`

`them. Some people thought we can explain or derive natural numbers`

`from logic, but this has failed, and eventually we can use logic to`

`explain that no theory which does not assume the numbers (or something`

`equivalent) can derive the numbers.`

`To be sure, you can derive the numlbers from Kxy = x and Sxyz =`

`xz(yz), like you can derive the axiom of arithmetic (0≠s(x), ...)`

`from Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz). They are equivalent (at some`

`ontological level).`

`This makes arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) a nice starting place. In`

`that case you can derive at least all dreams, and without them, you`

`can derive none of them.`

`So in that case, you are provably right. Why does number exists?`

`because ... if they don't exist you would not been able to ask that`

`question. And why do you ask?`

Numbers are truly mysterious. Provably mysterious.

`This is not entirely obvious. At first sight, it looks like numbers`

`are logical, but that intuition is false.`

Bruno PS. You might try to make better quotes.

--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/59ceGIHlAowJ.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.