Dear LirZ,
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:52 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King > <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> >> That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an >> observer in such a universe, it's far too simple." There could not be one >> wherefore "he could deduce the existence of 17 theoretically, and work >> out its properties" is impossible: probability zero. >> > > I can't see the significance of this argument. If we take a large enough > number, say 10^80, that observers *can *exist, we can then ask whether > such observers could work out the properties of numbers greater than 10^80. > Since we appear to be in such a universe, the answer is yes. > Are we really "working it out" or are we merely doing some approximation that is cut off far below the 10^80 limit? So, no! > And we can also work out the properties of a universe containing 16 > objects. > You just pointed out that there cannot be observers in the 16 object universe, so why are you arguing as if they could exist in such? This is a typical mistake that we make: assuming that there can exist an observer of a universe that does not allow the existence of such an observer in that particular universe. To do such is a fallacy! > So it appears that observers in a universe which allows observers to exist > can work out the properties of universes containing any number of objects. > (Or, for short, they can do maths,) > Wrong, there is no actual "working it all the way out". There is, OTOH, lots of shortcuts and cheating by assuming that some thing is true without actually working the proof by demonstration. > >> We could never experience such and thus it follows that, to us, such a >> universe does not exist. Now, to follow the chain of reasoning, consider >> the collection of universes that are such that 17 is not prime is true in >> that collection. Could "we" experience anything like those universes? >> > > I can't see any chain of reasoning. > Does it make more sense now? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
