On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 10:27:07 AM UTC, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 3:37:05 AM UTC+1, [email protected]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> *So what? The point I am making is that some mathematical objects exist
>> but are not instantiated in physical reality, thus falsifying his
>> hypothesis, unless you insist that they are instantiated in other
>> universes, in which case you have a non falsifiable theory, which isn't a
>> scientific theory. AG*
>>
>
> If it is logically consistent for a mathematical object to be instantiated
> in a universe then it is instantiated there.
>
*I think you mean that if some mathematical construct does not contradict
the laws of physics in some universe, then it must be instantiated in that
universe. And the reason for that is what? Why must all logically
consistent constructs be instantiated? This idea seems perilously close to
another false idea; namely, that every outcome of a quantum experiment must
be observed in some universe. AG*
> Whether it is a falsifiable or scientific theory is a different matter.
>
*Since it can't be falsified and makes no testable predictions, what value
does it have? AG*
Tegmark's view, logical consistency is existence, so anything that is
logically consistent exists, by definition. You can devise other
definitions of existence by arbitrarily restricting this one.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
