Re: Dreams and Machines

From: Torgny Tholerus <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:27:30 +0200

Rex Allen skrev:
> Brent,
> So my first draft addressed many of the points you made, but it that
> email got too big and sprawling I thought.
> So I've focused on what seems to me like the key passage from your
> post. If you think there was some other point that I should have
> addressed, let me know.
> So, key passage:
>> Do these mathematical objects "really" exist? I'd say they have
>> logico-mathematical existence, not the same existence as tables and
>> chairs, or quarks and electrons.
> So which kind of existence do you believe is more fundamental? Which
> is primary? Logico-mathematical existence, or quark existence? Or
> are they separate but equal kinds of existence?

The most general form of existence is: All mathematical possible
universes exist. Our universe is one of those mathematical possible
existing universes.

The inside of a specific universe constitutes an other form of
existence. In a specific universe there are objects inside that
universe. In the Game of Life universe, you have the Glider object, the
Glider gun object, the Exploder object, the Tumbler object, etc. In a
specific instance of the GoL-universe, there exist some objects and some
objects does not exist there.

In our own universe, there exist tables and chairs and quarks and
electrons. This is the specific form of existence. But the
mathematical objects does not exist in our universe, in this form of
existence. You can not find the "17" object anywhere inside our universe.

Then we have the general form of existence saying that our universe
exists because it is a mathematical possibility.

Torgny Tholerus
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Wed Jul 22 2009 - 10:27:30 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:16 PST