On 8/20/2014 4:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 August 2014 04:55, John Clark <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
There is nothing logically inconsistent about a fire breathing dragon
powered by a
nuclear reactor in its belly, but that doesn't prove that such an animal
actually
exists.
Unless you believe that QM necessarily entails a multiverse, in which case they exist
somewhere.
Do we know that? If we know 2+2=5 doesn't hold in any universe, how do we know about
complex things like fire-breathing dragoons. That's something that bothers me about
everythingism. Lots of things are impossible in QM, like cloning an unknown state. Bruno
says Newtonian physics is impossible under comp (because there's no FPI). So I think some
agnosticism should be spared for "everything happens somewhere".
> Gödel's theorem might show that mathematics is more than mere
formalism, but
it does not allow us to make the leap to mathematics being more than
abstract
relationships between numbers.
What else could maths be, apart from abstract relationships between numbers?
They could be the ur-stuff of a TOE. Bruno says they're not stuff - but then I don't
think "stuff" is any better defined that "primitive physical".
Brent
(Maybe that word "abstract" causes problems? It's possible (if comp is correct) that
"abstract" relations are more real than real ones.)
--
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.
