On 13 September 2014 08:17, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/12/2014 2:20 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> One counter argument is to note that math has been "unreasonably >> effective" in Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, fluid dynamics, >> non-relativistic quantum mechanics, and other theories which we now think >> were mere approximations. This seems much more consistent with mathematics >> being descriptive rather than prescriptive. >> > > Or equally consistent, at least. Assuming that maths is broader than > what is required to describe (or generate) our universe, this is equally > consistent with the MUH. > > I don't think it's equal. If MUH is true then all those other > mathematical theories must be realized in some other universes where they > are not just approximations. Then it's no longer the case that mathematics > is unreasonably effective in picking out our universe; it could "pick out" > any one of them. Either it would just be chance that we're in THIS > mathematical universe, or there's an anthropic selection that prevents > intelligent beings in universes with different mathematical bases. > > It seems obvious to me that there would be an anthropic selection effect. Organisms (probably) couldn't exist in a universe made from, for example, Newtonian physics - you (probably) need quantum physics for fidelity of reproduction, and maybe for making brains.
-- 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.
