On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 12:50:04 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > > 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?* >
Because it follows from the definition of existence as logical consistency. > > * This idea seems perilously close to another false idea; namely, that > every outcome of a quantum experiment must be observed in some universe. AG* > How do you know many-worlds interpretation of QM is false? As far as I am concerned, it is false if it is inconsistent. > *Since it can't be falsified and makes no testable predictions, what value > does it have? AG* > Some multiverse theories may be testable. As for Tegmark's ultimate multiverse theory, I don't know if it can be useful for physics. For me it is philosophically useful because it clarifies what it means to exist. -- 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.
