# Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

```
On 09 May 2012, at 02:36, Pierz wrote:```
```
```
```
```
The problem is that physicists have not yet succeed in marrying QM and GR, which is needed to get a quantum theory of space-time. You can bet on strings or on loop gravity though, or on the Dewitt- Wheeler equation, which, actually make physical time vanishing completely from the big picture. It is an internal parameter only.
```
```
Yes, none of which I pretend to understand any more than any guy who reads all the popular expositions of such theories. But it seems highly dubious to me for Krauss to even present a theory that pretends to explain something as fundamental as something from nothing given the absence of a QM-GR unification. After all, as good as QM and GR are at predicting stuff in their domains, we know that neither is right! It's an overreach.
```
```
It is different for the UD. Its existence is a theorem in any theory of 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 say arithemetic 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 Google Groups "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