On 28 December 2013 07:11, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.