On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:59, LizR wrote:
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.
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 [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.
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
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.
