On 21 October 2014 04:06, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 20 Oct 2014, at 01:20, LizR wrote: > > Hi Richard > > I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear to be > positing that a mathematical universe might have a physical underpinning. > If so, this rather defangs the MUH, > > OK. > > which obtains its importance from being logically prior to (the appearance > of) a material universe. Without that assumption > > Which assumption? >
The assumption that the MUH makes mathematics logically prior to a material universe. there seems no point in the MUH, since one is back needing to explain > "something from nothing" to obtain the underlying physical universe. > (Similarly with the CUH and Comp, of course.) > > > What is similar? > It is similar in that the CUH and comp derive the appearance of a material universe from something more abstract, such as maths and computations. > I would appreciate if you could just clarify a little bit. > > > I've tried :-) -- 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.
