On 25 Mar 2014, at 08:46, LizR wrote:
I agree that the MUH's "predictions" are a bit vague, there's the
"continuing to find maths useful" prediction and something about
finding ourselves in the most generic universe compatible with our
existence, which is not exactly easy to measure. But I guess this is
going to be the case for something that's trying to work out why
there's something rather than nothing, why maths is unreasonably
effective, etc. It's basically philosophy rather than science, and
will continue to be until a lot more people have thought about it
and maybe someone has come up with some testable results, or someone
else has worked out that it's contradictory, flawed or forever
untestable.
(But, you know, kudos to him for trying - well, unless he stole his
ideas from the Everything list :)
Unless, indeed, or just in part, but he acknowledged my work in some
draft he sent me, then they disappeared in the public version, making
him either a coward, or an opportunist or both. (Or under influence,
as it is easy to defame to me to a physicist by saying I am wrong on
Gödel, and to a logician that I am mad in physics (like "pretending
that I "believe" in "parallel world", that's enough).
I thought you knew that a 100% refutable theory exist. It shows that
the "mathematical hypothesis" is still somehow like Craig's assumption
of sense. That assumes too much. There is no mathematical definition
of mathematical. With comp, the "theological" is already
"arithmetical", so you can bet that the mathematical is also part of
the consistent extensions, but all attempt to reify a part of it leads
to inconsistencies.
Scott critics is the same as Deutsch critics, they find the
"everything" idea trivial, but they see it as the complete
explanation. Precise theories, like comp (when made precise!), and
already Everett, makes clear that the "everything" is not the
explanation, but the problem. Then with comp, it is a problem in
arithmetic, or (intensional) number theory. The arithmetical
hypostases refutes Scott critics on the everything provides by
arithmetic when we bet on comp.
The problem is that very few scientist and philosopher know logic. I
mean "logic", the branch of math.
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
