On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote:
> Dear LizR, > > That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an > observer in such a universe, it's far too simple." There could not be one > wherefore "he could deduce the existence of 17 theoretically, and work > out its properties" is impossible: probability zero. > I can't see the significance of this argument. If we take a large enough number, say 10^80, that observers *can *exist, we can then ask whether such observers could work out the properties of numbers greater than 10^80. Since we appear to be in such a universe, the answer is yes. And we can also work out the properties of a universe containing 16 objects. So it appears that observers in a universe which allows observers to exist can work out the properties of universes containing any number of objects. (Or, for short, they can do maths,) > > We could never experience such and thus it follows that, to us, such a > universe does not exist. Now, to follow the chain of reasoning, consider > the collection of universes that are such that 17 is not prime is true in > that collection. Could "we" experience anything like those universes? > I can't see any chain of reasoning. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
