On 29 March 2015 at 21:04, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As you see, I believe in physicalism, not in Platonia. And I have not yet > seen any argument that might lead me to change my mind. One reason that has been suggested is the "unreasonable effectiveness" of maths as a description of physics. This is Max Tegmark's argument for the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis". To take this to its logical conclusion, if we ever formulate a theory that (as far as we know) describes everything that exists - a real live TOE - then, Tegmark would say, what is there that distinguishes the universe from the, by hypothesis completely accurate, description? His conclusion is nothing, and since the maths description is simpler than the observed universe, the scientific conclusion is that what we observe is a part of a multiverse containing all outcomes of the TOE (this is a bit like Russell's TON, with the equations of the TOE as the "almost nothing" that actually exists) - and that assuming the universe is anything more than just "What the maths looks like from the inside" is unnecessary - and untestable - metaphysical speculation. However we don't have such a TOE as yet, so it's possible it will turn out to be non-mathematical, in which case Max's argument will sink without trace. -- 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.
