On 28 December 2013 07:11, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote: > > Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume that the > only things that exist are those that must exist (in this case some simple > numerical relations). This seems to me to be a good starting hypothesis - > show that some specific thing must exist, such as the facts of simple > arithmetic, and see what happens. Descartes tried this when he started with > his own thoughts (i.e., as we generally assume, with the idea of > computation). Which is pretty darn close to assuming just abstract > relations exist... > > My favourite answer to the question "Why is there something rather than > nothing?" is "There isn't!" > > > Hmm... You still have to assume something, like 0 and its successors, or > the empty set + some operation adding sets from it (like reflexion and > comprehension), etc. >
Yes, "there isn't!" refers to the assumption of a material universe. What exists in this view is only what must exist, namely certain abstract relations (the famous 2+2=4 and 17 being prime). If one can get the rest (or the appearance thereof) to drop out somehow from things which are logical and/or mathematical necessities, you will have answered that age old question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" - this is why I have a lot of time and indeed admiration for comp, and also Max Tegmark's MUH, because they are both trying to do this. I have always been interested in this question, but many answers seem to just push it back onto something else, "God" being the main offender. -- 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.
