On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote:
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume
that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this
case some simple numerical relations). This seems to me to be a good
starting hypothesis - show that some specific thing must exist, such
as the facts of simple arithmetic, and see what happens. Descartes
tried this when he started with his own thoughts (i.e., as we
generally assume, with the idea of computation). Which is pretty
darn close to assuming just abstract relations exist...
My favourite answer to the question "Why is there something rather
than nothing?" is "There isn't!"
Hmm... You still have to assume something, like 0 and its successors,
or the empty set + some operation adding sets from it (like reflexion
and comprehension), etc.
Logicism has failed. you can't prove the existence of zero in logic,
still less of the successors and the laws to which they obey.
Nothing *primitively* physical? Then I can be OK.
Bruno
(See "Theory of nothing" for more details.)
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
