Re: Why there is something rather than nothing...

```
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:59, LizR wrote:```
```
```
```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.
```
```
```
I knew, but as many confuse "universe" with "physical universe", it is good to insist on this.
```

```
```What exists in this view is only what must exist,
```
```
```
But 0 don't need to exist for purely logical reason (contra the feeling of Russell and Whitehead). Logicism has failed, and we know that we must postulates some axioms to get the zero, the successors and the laws. then it is amazing that we get already all computable functions from just addition and multiplication, so that is enough for the comp ontology (by UDA).
```

```
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?"
```
```
We get an anwer for "where the appearance of a physical reality, and consciousness come from".
```
```
And, we get also an explanation, not of where numbers or combinators come from, but of why we need to postulate them and why we cannot prove them from less. So there is a last unsolvable mystery, but comp explains entirely whay it has to be like that. the origin of the numbers is in our intrinsic machine's black spot. We need them to just be able to give sense to the question.
```

```
- 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.
```
```
Yes. using God as an explanation is not valid. With comp, God, or just Truth, is just another problem, so to speak. That amkes it even more interesting ... and complex.
```
Bruno

```
```

--
```
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
```To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
```
```
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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