On 21 August 2014 11:57, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/20/2014 4:00 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 21 August 2014 04:55, John Clark <[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. >
Well, the former is logically impossible. The latter isn't, according to Mr Clark, so assuming he's right, "everythingism" gives it some (probably tiny) measure of reality in a multiverse in which all logically possible consequences of the LoP are instantiated, by definition. > 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". > It depends whether a consequence of the multiverse is that all physically possible events happen within it. I'm told that is the case (and anything else would entail it having greater complexity, hence gets "occamed out" from immediate consideration). However, I don't see that your final sentence above bears any obvious relation to the two in front of it, so yet again I find myself unable to follow what you're getting at. > > 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. > I have no idea what that means. > 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. > -- 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.
