On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 3:23:28 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Oct 2018, at 22:36, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 8:17:09 PM UTC, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 9:19:01 PM UTC+2, [email protected] >> wrote: >> >>> >>> *"Consistently defined" means what? Plane waves are easily defined, say >>> as the limiting case of a spherical wave as it advances in space and time; >>> OR as solutions to ME's. So here we have a well defined mathematical >>> construction which doesn't exist in THIS universe, and in fact no need to >>> invoke ME's! But in your view, the MUH still holds. You must be in love, >>> with the MUH. AG* >>> >> >> "Consistently defined" means consistently defined in relation to >> everything. If you define a plane wave as being isolated then it is >> consistently defined. But if you define a plane wave as a *part* of a >> universe then it must also be defined consistently in relation to the laws >> of that universe. Which apparently isn't the case with our universe and >> that's why a plane wave cannot exist here. >> > > > *As I understand the MUH, it states that every well defined mathematical > form or function is reified, or instantiated, or manifested concretely in > the physical universe (assuming such a thing exists, which Bruno denies). > I contend that plane waves are iindeed well defined mathematical objects > which are NOT reified, NOT instantiated, and NOT manifested concretely in > the physical universe. THEREFORE, the MUH is falsified. Period. AG* > > > > That cannot be valid. >
*What can't be valid? Plane waves are well defined mathematical constructs or functions that are not instantiated in the "physical" reality of our universe. I don't want to split hairs with you about the reality of a physical external world. AG* Mechanism provides a counter example. There we have a weak > “arithmeticalism”. You don’t need to believe in any metaphysical numbers, > just introspect your self and agreeing with what has been taught to you in > primary school. It is a form of Pythagoreanism. There is on 0 and its > successors and successors’ successors. A large part of the magic comes > already from the addition laws, but where god says “oops” comes with the > law of multiplication, which together with addition makes the reality > Turing universal, and dovetailing on all computations, and the view from > inside has to taken into account the unboundbwle complexity of the inside > view. > > I am glad you mentioned your ontological commitment though. Very good. > > Bruno > > > > > > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- 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.
