On 01 Sep 2005, at 00:40, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does it truly make sense to assume that Existence can have a
Beginning? We are not talking here, I AFAIK, about the beginning of
our observed universe as we can wind our way back in history to a Big
Bang Event Horizon, but this event itself must have some form of
antecedent that Exists. Remember, existence, per say, does not depend
on anything, except for maybe self-consistency, and thus it follows
that Existence itself can not have a "beginning". It follows that it
is Eternal, without beginning or end.
I would even say that it is out of time and space consideration.
IMHO, Tegmark's paper, like the rest of his papers, is not worth
reading if only because they misdirect thoughts more than they inform
thoughts.
You are hard. Tegmark paper is interesting, except that he still
(like many physicists) put the mind-body problem under the rug, and
so he misses the impact of incompleteness, and the fact that at the
level of mathematical platonism, the physical world is not just a
mathematical structure among others. With comp, although physics is
secondary, the physical world is not just a mathematical structure
among others, but a very special mathematical structures emerging
from existing relations among a vast set of mathematical structures.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Thu Sep 01 2005 - 08:58:55 PDT