On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Below is what I wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to >>>>>> believe that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can >>>>>> exist and be true independently of the universe or someone writing it >>>>>> down, >>>>>> or a mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But it's truth value does depend on someone assigning the value "t" >>>>>> to some axioms and all mathematical truth values are nothing but "t" >>>>>> arbitrarily assigned to some axioms plus some rules of inference that >>>>>> preserve "t". "t" has little to do with what it true in the world. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The physical world chugs along with anyone having to assign to assign >>>>> values, or apply rules of inference. >>>>> >>>>> Why can't the same be true for other platonic objects? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Because "Platonic" means "exists only in imagination". >>>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps conventionally. >>>> >>>> But perhaps physical existence is platonic existence (i.e. all >>>> self-consistent structures exist, all rule based formal systems, etc.). >>>> >>>> >>>> Given a sufficiently broad definition of "exists". Just like 2+2=5 >>>> for sufficiently large values of 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> This would account for fine-tuning, and plausibly yield an answer to >>>> "why quantum mechanics?" >>>> >>>> >>>> One can "account" for anything in words. >>>> >>> >>> Not exactly. The existence of a plentitude implies observers should find >>> themselves entwines with an environment having many-histories. >>> >>> >>> You don't know that the environment has more than one history. >>> >>> >>> If there was no QM, that would rule out the existence of a plentitude. >>> >>> >>> You think God couldn't have created other Newtonian worlds? >>> >> >> If there is an infinite plenitude of individually distinct Newtonian >> worlds, observers within that reality will experience indeterminnace in >> their observations due to the fact that each observer's mind has an >> infinity of incarnations across different Newtonian universes in the >> plentitude. >> >> >> In a Newtonian multitude even observer would be distinct and would have >> only one instance. There would be no indeterminance. >> > > Why do you say they would be distinct? > > > They're either distinct or identical and identical universes are the same > universe, c.f. Laplace and the identity of indiscernibles. > The universes can be different while the same brain state of a particular observer is found between two or more universes. Jason > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a13fe376-1288-60cd-af27-4cb6e1742917%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a13fe376-1288-60cd-af27-4cb6e1742917%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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%2BBCJUgpJ0%3D_V0JLJdg79ORnfBo49-13D-UMPEBXLTekk-VzWQ%40mail.gmail.com.
