On 11/8/2012 7:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:19:03 AM UTC-5, Stephen
Paul King wrote:
Comp is not false, IMHO, it is just looked as through a very
limited window. It's notion of truth is what occurs in the limit
of an infinite number of mutually agreeing observers. 1+1=2 has no
counter example in a world that is Boolean Representable, thus it
is universally true. This does not imply that all mathematical
truths are so simple to prove via a method of plurality of
agreement. Motl wrote something on this today:
Unfortunately that page seems to be gone?
I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't objectively true though, I'm
saying that arithmetic comes from sense and not the other way around.
The fact that geometry is arithmetically redundant I think supports
that if not proves it. If comp were true, the universe would not and
could not have any geometry.
I agree. Mathematical objects supervene on minds plural (not a mind!).
"When truths don't commute. Inconsistent histories.
When the uncertainty principle is being presented, people usually
– if not always – talk about the position and the momentum or
analogous dimensionful quantities. That leads most people to
either ignore the principle completely or think that it describes
just some technicality about the accuracy of apparatuses.
However, most people don't change their idea what the information
is and how it behaves. They believe that there exists some sharp
objective information, after all. Nevertheless, these ideas are
incompatible with the uncertainty principle. Let me explain why
the uncertainty principle applies to the truth, too."
Please read the read at his website
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at