On 22 Oct 2014, at 17:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2014 1:33 AM, Peter Sas wrote:
Hi guys,
Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source
of being:
http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html
I think you are too quick here:
"It seems the subjective interpretation can be ruled out from the
start. Logic may be just subjective, being no more than the inherent
structure of human thought. But as such it cannot declare the
necessity of existence. It is absurd and indeed circular to say that
there must be being since we cannot imagine it otherwise. The
circularity of such a proposal follows from the fact that we
ourselves, after all, are part of being, so on this proposal we
exist because we cannot imagine ourselves as not existing. In such a
scenario, then, we would be causa sui, since we would have imagined
or thought ourselves into existence. But this is plainly absurd."
First, we can imagine ourselves as not existing.
We can do that in the third person way, like we can imagine ourself to
be in Washington *and* Moscow. But we can't imagine ourselves as non
existing in the first person sense. It is meaningless from that first
person point of view. isn't it? Life, topologically, is an "open set",
because (absolute) dying (if that exists) can't be a life experience.
No Diary can ever contained a genuine, non poetical account, of not
existing.
There is a nice poetical account by Italo Calvino "The Nonexistent
Knight", (Le chevalier inexistant), though.
Second, what you call the "subjective interpretation" I would take
to be the anthropic interpretation: We can only ponder this question
if we exist, so we necessarily find being.
We find consciousness, but that is at least a form of "being", OK. It
is Descartes' cogito. If I understand you correctly. We only learn to
bet on more and It get anthropic, or Turing-Löb-tropic assuming comp,
by computer science, indeed only by arithmetical relations. But that
must be shown equivalent with some Everett-tropic QM.
Physics is a sum on all computations. It has to be sigma_1 complete
(if only to have computers) but it might be more than sigma_1
complete, and in all case, the truth *about* the sigma_1 complete
entities escapes all possible theories. Even "divine theories" like
with oracle for a Pi_142 complete problem.
The mathematical logicians have discovered the abyss between the
arithmetical reality of the structure (N, +, *) and all possible
effective theories, (notably by showing that it incarnates all
possible behaviors of all universal machines).
Bruno
Brent
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
