> On 28 Oct 2018, at 01:18, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 11:41 AM <agrayson2...@gmail.com > <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > A spherical wave asymptotically approaches a plane wave as it progresses in > > space and time, but it never becomes a plane wave. This where the rubber > > hits the road for the MUH; we have a mathematical construct that doesn't > > exist in physical reality. > > True, but there is nothing special about plane waves in that regard, whenever > a physicists makes a mathematical model he always ignores many things, one > example would be effects that decrease asymptotically so much they become > unmeasurable. Models are always simpler than the reality, if they weren't > there would be no point in making mathematical models. Physics is more > complex than mathematics and for that reason I think a mathematical sphere is > an approximation of a physical ball, but Bruno thinks a physical ball is an > approximation of a mathematical sphere.
You have not read after step 3, so how could you know this. And indeed, that is false. It is the spherical sphere that you believe you see which is a non computable sum on infinitely many computations. You forget that with mechanism, matter is emergent as observable (stable persistent appearances) from a first person (plural) points view. That needs the global 1p indeterminacy on the full universal dovetailing, structured by self-reterence. It is amazing that the propositional logical part is decidable, but with quantifier it becomes highly undecidable (Pi_1 with the oracle of the whole arithmetical truth). Up to now, the evidence are that physics are far more simple than arithmetic (even just seen from outside, from inside it is unboundedly complex). Bruno > On this point at least I was under the impression that you agree more with me > than Bruno, but maybe not. > > > as far as I am concerned the MUH is easily falsified, and why it continues > > to interest people is baffling. > > Brian Greene lists 9 different types of possible other worlds, Hugh Everett's > Many Worlds is # 3. There is no rock solid proof for any of them but I think > 8 of them are reasonable hypotheses, but MUH is a step too far for me. > > John K Clark > > > -- > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
