On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/17/2013 11:39 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 18 December 2013 07:32, meekerdb <[email protected]> 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 > mean!) > > > I think I do. > > > > Plus existence isn't a well defined notion, altho I did have a go > earlier. > > > 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 point to. Jason -- 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.
