On 1/18/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:

On 18 January 2014 19:51, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>wrote:On 1/17/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:On 18 January 2014 19:12, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: But where does it exist? X has to be conscious of a location, a physics, etc. If all this is the same as where I exist, then it is just a translation of this world into arithmetic. It's the flip side of "A perfect description of X is the same as X", i.e. "X is the perfect description of X". If every perfect description is realized somewhere in arithmetic (and I think it probably is) nothing is gained by saying we may be in arithmetic. Don't we gain less entities, making Occam a bit happier? If we can get the appearance of a universe without having to actually have one, can't we "retire the universe" and just stick with the "appearance-of-one-with-equal-explanatory-value" ? (Not an original idea, of course, I'm fairly sure Max Tegmark said something along those lines regarding his mathematical universe hypothesis -- that if the maths was isomorphic to the universe, why bother to assume the universe was physically there?).I'm asking why have the maths?Well (putting on my AR hat) we have it because the maths is /necessarily/ existent,while the universe isn't.

`I disagree. The maths are necessarily true, i.e. "axioms imply theorems" is true. But`

`why should that imply *existence*. We know we can invent all kinds of maths by just`

`changing the axioms or even changing the rules of inference. Sometimes people on this`

`list post the semi-mystic opinion that everything=nothing, pointing to the need for`

`discrimination. I look at this as saying positing everything is the same as saying nothing.`

Of course there's an answer - we can manipulate the maths - but then doesn't that proves that the maths aren't the universe. They wouldn't be any use as predictive and descriptive tools if they WERE the things described. They are only useful because they are abstractions, i.e. they leave stuff out (like existence?).Well .... the maths does have that "unreasonable effectiveness" (that you're probablybored to death hearing about). And one reason for that could be because it is - in theguise of some yet-to-be-discovered TOE - isomorphic to the universe.

Or it could be because we, denizens of this physics/universe, invent them. Brent

In which case - should it ever prove to be the case - see above. --You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EverythingList" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.