On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/17/2013 11:39 AM, LizR wrote:
> On 18 December 2013 07:32, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> But I don't have to believe true=exists.
>> It seems to me this parallels your comment that the difference between
> "maths and matter" is that we can prove that mathematical truths are true
> (or words to that effect - sorry posting in haste. Hope you know what I
> I think I do.
> Plus existence isn't a well defined notion, altho I did have a go
> I think of "exists" as relative to a domain. So there "exists" a divisor
> of 17 is true in arithmetic. But if "exists" is well defined that means
> your domain is not reality (or more precisely you can't assert that it's
> reality). Reality is stuff you can point to.
According to this concept, only presentism could be valid, since no one can
point to the 4th dimension or things in the past or future. But presentism
is contrary to special relativity, and would have to be false according to
this concept of pointing ability. Similarly, only Copenhagen could be
true, since we can't point to those other branches that Everett supposes to
exist. String theory would also be false, since it admits too many other
possible universes which we have no way whatsoever of pointing to.
I think it is better to judge a theory based on what it predicts our
experiences should be, rather than whether it predicts things we cannot
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.