On 10/28/2018 5:23 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
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.
But that's what's silly and vacuous about your theory. If the object breaks the law of the universe it just means that wasn't really the law. Observation trumps definition.
Brent -- 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.
