On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 10:23, Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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. > Identical physical states in a deterministic world would evolve identically, as would any supervening mental states. However, a supervenient relationship is such that multiple different physical states can give rise to the same mental state. The different physical states may then evolve differently giving different subsequent mental states. Subjectively, this would mean that your next mental state is undetermined. This idea has been used by the philosopher Christian List to propose a mechanism for libertarian free will in a determined world. I don’t think that works because indeterminacy is not a good basis for free will (the main problem with libertarian free will), but it is an interesting idea nonetheless. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/CAH%3D2ypXqyALHwbpDv76vYdpsS0StQ-H0AvNZp443iz-Y55Tq-w%40mail.gmail.com.
