On 19 May 2014 12:13, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 5/18/2014 4:23 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 17 May 2014 11:05, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 5/16/2014 2:41 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 16 May 2014 17:14, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: >>> >>> So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you >>> think it is possible to reason about "the Void"? Or meaningful? Or useful? >>> >>> >>> Sure, it's possible to reason about anything. Whether you can arrive >>> at something useful is an open question - one can but try. I like the late >>> Norm Levitt's remark, "What is there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there? >>> NOTHING!" >>> >> >> Or one could paraphrase Russell Standish - What is there? NOTHING! - >> Which is EVERYTHING! >> >> I like Russell's version, which creates more of a *frisson*. Although I >> assume Levitt is claiming the existence of a multiverse (EVERYTHING implies >> that of course). >> >> >> I doubt that, Norm was rather a fan of Bohmian QM. >> > > I had the chance to talk to Jim Al-Kalili at the Auckland Writers > Festival and I was surprised to find his favourite interpretation of QM is > also the Bohm one, which hasn't been coming up much in Max Tegmark's polls > of physicists recently. (I believe it's the multiverse but with one > universe "more real" than all the others, or something similar). > > Obviously I didn't have much to go on with Mr Levitt, just the quote you > supplied, but ISTM "What is there? EVERYTHING!" could be taken to mean that > everything that can exist exists (i.e. Everett). An alternative reading is > that he is saying he thinks the universe is infinite, which also gives us > everything that can exist. I'm not sure how else one can interpret > "EVERYTHING" especially when it's emphasised like that. > > > You're reading to much into it. Norm wasn't involved the everythingism of > Tegmark and Marchal. He was making a tongue-in-cheek paraphrase of W. V. > O. Quine's, "Nonbeing must in some sense be, otherwise what is it that > there is not?" Norm was interested in defending the existence of a > Platonic realm of mathematics, but one that "existed" in a different way > than the material world. >
Like I said, you didn't provide much to go on. > > Brent > "The duty of abstract mathematics, as I see it, is precisely to > expand our capacity for hypothesizing possible ontologies." > --- Norm Levitt > Max T has definitely adhere to that. -- 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/d/optout.
