On 8/12/2022 5:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker
<meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker
<meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker
<meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker
<meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker
<meekerbr...@gmail.com> 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.
In that case they are distinct universes. Universes include brains.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a64476a-2eeb-3081-89c4-e39f83680354%40gmail.com.