- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:54:20 +0200

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

Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:54:20 +0200

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

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST
*