PS "Fire breathing dragoons <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon>" indeed! Tres amusant.
On 21 August 2014 13:24, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
