On 13 September 2014 08:17, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 9/12/2014 2:20 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 12 September 2014 14:19, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
