On 5/22/2012 3:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2012/5/22 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

    On 5/21/2012 10:56 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

    2012/5/22 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net

        On 5/21/2012 3:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

        2012/5/21 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net

            On 5/21/2012 7:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

            2012/5/21 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net

                On 5/21/2012 1:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

                    No it's not a computation, it arises because at
                    every step, computations diverge into new sets
                    of infinite computations, giving rise to the 1p


                 Hi Quentin,

                   So could we agree that the idea that the
                universe is defined/determined ab initio ("in the
                beginning") is refuted by this?

            I don't know what you mean here... but in comp the
            universe per se does not exist, it emerges from
            computations and is not an object by itself
            (independent of computations).

            Dear Quentin,

                My interest is philosophy so I am asking questions
            in an attempt to learn about peoples ideas. Now I am
            learning about yours. Your sentence here implies to me
            that only "objects" (considered as capable of being
            separate and isolated from all others) can "exist". Only
            "objects" exist and not, for example, processes. Is this

        No, it depends what you mean by existing. When I say "in
        comp the universe per se does not exist", I mean it does not
        exist ontologically as it emerge from computations.
        Existence means different thing at different level.

        Does a table exist ? It depends at which level you describe it.

        Dear Quentin,

            I am trying to understand exactly how you think and
        define words.

            By "exist"

    Existence is dependent on the level of description, and can be
    seperated by what exists ontologically and what exists
    epistemologically. So it depends on the theory you use to define

    I would favor a theory which would define existence by what can
    be experienced/observed. Maybe it's a lack of imagination, but I
    don't know what it would mean for a thing to exist and never be

    You're not likely to experience a quark or even an atom.

Well I didn't say *I*... observer != human. It's something that can interact (with the rest of the world)... And also I agree that what *I* think exists is determined by the model of the world I use... but what really exists doesn't care about what I think or the model I have ;)


      What exists is determined by your model of the world.  Even
    parts of the model that make no possible difference to the
    experiences the model predicts may be kept because they make the
    theory simpler, e.g. infinitesimal distances in physics.



What about the existence of numbers? How exactly does interaction between numbers and observers (per Quentin's definition) occur such that we can make claims as to their existence? (Assuming the postulations of Arithmetic Realism <http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg10752.html>.)



"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

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