On 19 May 2014 12:13, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/18/2014 4:23 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 17 May 2014 11:05, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 5/16/2014 2:41 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 16 May 2014 17:14, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: >>> >>> So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you >>> think it is possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful? >>> >>> >>> Sure, it's possible to reason about anything. Whether you can arrive >>> at something useful is an open question - one can but try. I like the late >>> Norm Levitt's remark, "What is there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there? >>> NOTHING!" >>> >> >> Or one could paraphrase Russell Standish - What is there? NOTHING! - >> Which is EVERYTHING! >> >> I like Russell's version, which creates more of a *frisson*. Although I >> assume Levitt is claiming the existence of a multiverse (EVERYTHING implies >> that of course). >> >> >> I doubt that, Norm was rather a fan of Bohmian QM. >> > > I had the chance to talk to Jim Al-Kalili at the Auckland Writers > Festival and I was surprised to find his favourite interpretation of QM is > also the Bohm one, which hasn't been coming up much in Max Tegmark's polls > of physicists recently. (I believe it's the multiverse but with one > universe "more real" than all the others, or something similar). > > Obviously I didn't have much to go on with Mr Levitt, just the quote you > supplied, but ISTM "What is there? EVERYTHING!" could be taken to mean that > everything that can exist exists (i.e. Everett). An alternative reading is > that he is saying he thinks the universe is infinite, which also gives us > everything that can exist. I'm not sure how else one can interpret > "EVERYTHING" especially when it's emphasised like that. > > > You're reading to much into it. Norm wasn't involved the everythingism of > Tegmark and Marchal. He was making a tongue-in-cheek paraphrase of W. V. > O. Quine's, "Nonbeing must in some sense be, otherwise what is it that > there is not?" Norm was interested in defending the existence of a > Platonic realm of mathematics, but one that "existed" in a different way > than the material world. >
Like I said, you didn't provide much to go on. > > Brent > "The duty of abstract mathematics, as I see it, is precisely to > expand our capacity for hypothesizing possible ontologies." > --- Norm Levitt > Max T has definitely adhere to that. -- 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.
