On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 12:38:02 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/28/2018 4:50 AM, [email protected] <javascript:> 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. * > > > That's not what he said. He said all logically consistent objects must > exist. Breaking one of the laws of physics, e.g. not conserving > 4-momentum, is not a* logical contradiction* of anything. >
It would be a contradiction if the object that breaks the law of a universe was defined as being part of that universe. Being part of a universe entails conforming to the laws of that universe. -- 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.
