On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:03 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:07 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sunday, August 25, 2019, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:50 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 3:10 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 4:42 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, do you think there is any important difference between a >>>>>> mathematical structure that is isomorphic to a physical universe and that >>>>>> physical universe? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes; the physical universe is self-sustaining, the mathematical >>>>> structure is not. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why do you think this? >>>> >>> >>> Because the physical universe exists, and mathematical structures are >>> human constructs within this universe. >>> >> >> >> You are confusing mathematical structures with human descriptions of >> those structures. >> > > No, I am not confusing them. I am saying that mathematical structures are > nothing but the human descriptions of them -- they have no independent > existence. > You have said that many times. But you have not offered any evidence to convince anyone else. > > >> If there is evidence to disbelieve that other structures, different in >> form from our universe, exist, I haven't seen it. >> > > What evidence do you have that such structures, different in form from our > universe, actually exist? > > I have given posts on this before. I'll summarize them again here: - explains fine tuning - explains big bang (Markus Muller) - explains power of quantum computers and quantum mechanics (Bruno Marchal) - explains why something rather than nothing - explains importance of observer in physics (in Wheeler sense) - explains where information comes from - its a consequence of string theory - its a consequence of eternal inflation - its a consequence of arithmetical realism In short, it is a theory that makes fewer assumptions while explaining more. > > >> Assuming both exist, is one capable of building conscious minds while the >>>>>> other is not? If one cannot, what do you think it is that "physicalness" >>>>>> adds which is not present in that mathematical structure which enables >>>>>> the >>>>>> physical one to hold conscious minds? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I said; the physical structure exists independently, whereas the >>>>> mathematical structure is only an abstract construct, which does not exist >>>>> independently of the mind that created it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What's the difference between abstract and concrete? >>>> >>> >>> Things that exist differ from things that are only imagined. >>> >> >> But how do we know something is only imagined, versus we are imagining >> something that exists elsewhere? >> > > Do unicorns exist elsewhere? I think evidence plays a role here. > According to some theories, yes. If you think space goes on forever and is homogeneous (a theory confirmed (as in not ruled out and having passed several tests) by current scientific measurements so far), then unicorns must exist, even in our own universe. The evidence here is the CMB measurements and the observed flatness of space. > > > >> I think it's only a matter of relative perspective. Other universes to >>>> us seem abstract. While to people in other universes ours would seem >>>> abstract. Do you agree? >>>> >>> >>> What other universes? >>> >> >> Hypothetical ones. >> > > Hypothetical universes do not exist, by definition. > I thought it meant as a matter of a hypothesis, i.e. for discussion or consideration. To see what the consequences are under the hypothesis that they are real. > > > >> Other universes, if they exist, are self-contained and do not interact >>> with our known universe. So speculation along these lines is fruitless, >>> even if not actually meaningless. >>> >> >> If you think so, why participate in this list? Other universes is the >> basis for discussion of the everything list. >> > > Maybe I participate to undermine people's naive faith that such other > universes do exist, or that the existence or non existence of other > universes can have any bearing on anything at all. > > That is a valuable function and service, and helps advance science. If you do it despite thinking it is completely meaningless to even discuss, then it is also very charitable to us. Jason -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUji07vhV0X3BHLCGyOBNKU%2ByXZzBZbbycGM51D-ZYMsEw%40mail.gmail.com.
