On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:19:08 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 11:41 AM <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > >> *> A spherical wave asymptotically approaches a plane wave as it >> progresses in space and time, but it never becomes a plane wave. This where >> the rubber hits the road for the MUH; we have a mathematical construct that >> doesn't exist in physical reality. AG* > > > True, but there is nothing special about plane waves in that regard, > whenever a physicists makes a mathematical model he always ignores many > things, one example would be effects that decrease asymptotically so much > they become unmeasurable. Models are always simpler than the reality, if > they weren't there would be no point in making mathematical models. Physics > is more complex than mathematics and for that reason I think a mathematical > sphere is an approximation of a physical ball, but Bruno thinks a physical > ball is an approximation of a mathematical sphere. On this point at least I > was under the impression that you agree more with me than Bruno, but maybe > not. >
*I can imagine arithmetic arising from observations of a physical world, starting with self and other. I can imagine perfect geometric objects by mentally extrapolating from imperfect geometric objects; say a perfect circle from the imperfect circular disk of the Sun or full Moon. But I cannot imagine how the alleged illusion of the material world can arise from a Platonic universe of perfect forms. If that were the case, why aren't perfect geometric forms manifested in the physically world allegedly produced or induced by, and from, Platonia? OTOH, the Eastern mystics could very well be right that the external world is illusory. In my view, what's primary is space which somehow produces restrictions on directions of motion, thus giving rise to the idea and experience of matter and solidity. That is, in my view, it's the geometry of space which ultimately gives rise to the convincing appearance of an external material world, even though there's nothing really "there". AG * > > >> > >> *as far as I am concerned the MUH is easily falsified, and why it >> continues to interest people is baffling. AG* > > > Brian Greene lists 9 different types of possible other worlds, Hugh > Everett's Many Worlds is # 3. There is no rock solid proof for any of > them but I think 8 of them are reasonable hypotheses, but MUH is a step too > far for me. > *Inverse square is a good approximation for weak field gravity. Why not posit universes with inverse cube, and so on as possible universes? Some or many may not last long, but the number of possibilities offered seems exceedingly low. AG* > > John K Clark > > -- 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.
