On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 7:23 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 8/12/2022 5:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > 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. > > > In that case they are distinct universes. Universes include brains. > I think we're talking past each other. Perhaps this passage will help clarify things: And it’s very much the same story with the ruliad—and with the laws of physics. If we constrain the kind of way that we observe—or “parse”—the ruliad, then it becomes inevitable that the effective laws we’ll see will have certain features, which turns out apparently to be exactly what’s needed to reproduce known laws of physics. The full ruliad is in a sense very wild; but as observers with certain characteristics, we see a much tamer version of it, and in fact what we see is capable of being described in terms of laws that we can largely write just in terms of existing mathematical constructs. At the outset, we might have imagined that the ruliad would basically just serve as a kind of dictionary of possible universes—a “universe of all possible universes” in which each possible universe has different laws. But the ruliad is in a sense a much more complicated object. Rather than being a “dictionary” of possible separate universes, it is something that entangles together all possible universes. The Principle of Computational Equivalence implies a certain homogeneity to this entangled structure. But the crucial point is that we don’t “look at this structure from the outside”: we are instead observers embedded within the structure. And what we observe then depends on our characteristics. And it turns out that even very basic features of our consciousness and sensory apparatus in a sense inevitably lead to known laws of physics—and in a sense do so generically, independent of details of just where in rulial space we are, or exactly what slice of the ruliad we take. From: "The Concept of the Ruliad <https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/>" Steven Wolfram 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/0a64476a-2eeb-3081-89c4-e39f83680354%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0a64476a-2eeb-3081-89c4-e39f83680354%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%2BBCJUiKpQsnnUu1A-tE29%3DhbOByXwCS66GhY%3Dyx49QbODDrvw%40mail.gmail.com.
