Le Vendredi 24 Mars 2006 13:07, 1Z a écrit :
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > Le Jeudi 23 Mars 2006 22:39, 1Z a écrit :
> > > chales1.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> > > > He has proven beyond doubt, using Godellian arguments, that some
> > > > numbers or intrinsically random .ie. that there is NO formulaic
> > > > prescription that will reach that number from any starting point.
> > >
> > > If Mathematical Platonism is true, they exist anyway !
> > >
> > > What is not clear is why equations are important. Phsyics uses them,
> > > but
> > > physics is based on the idea that some logivally possible laws are
> > > real and others aren't, not on the idea that everymathemtical object
> > > is equally real.
> >
> > I disagree, physics is based on the idea that the world we *perceive* is
> > predictable/understandable. As you are *not* in every mathematical
> > object, you can't perceive more than the world you are embedded into.
>
> That would follow if "word" is taken in a physical sense, but it
> far from clear that it would still be the case mathematically.
>
> If the set {1,2,3,4}
> exists platonically, and the set
> {1023,1024,1025,1026}
> all the intersections and unions thereof exist, e.g. the set
> (1,2,1023,1024}
> exists (for all that it doesn't seem particularly intuitive).
>
> Likewise if
> {<mathematical description of me>, <mathematical description of my
> world>}
> exists, and the set,
>
> {<mathematical description of Harry Potter>, <mathematical description
> of Harry Potter's world>}
>
> exists, then the set
>
> {<mathematical description of me>, <mathematical description of Harry
> Potter's world>}
> exists.
I agree, but there is a difference to say that your existense is consistent
when spanning over these universe and to say that you know with the
information available that you are in a HP universe. Yes you are consistent
with a universe with real sorcerer in it, yet till the time you are not aware
of it you cannot say I'm in a HP universe, because you are only consistent
with it, you would be able to say it when you would get more information
(hence there will be a you who is in a HP consistent history (because you now
it's real) and another you who's still in the fuzzy set HP/~HP.
> >That doesn't
> > mean other "laws" could not rule other "parallel" universes.
>
> We've been here before: if there is a law that parallel universes do
> not overlap,
> that is itself only one mathematical possibility, and there must be
> other regions
> of the Mathematical Multiverse where it doesn't apply.
I do not see why histories could not overlap, note the whole point of the
computational theory is that *you* (at time t) are part of all computations
(infinite number of) that goes throught your state... so in this definition
you always are part of an infinite superposition/overlapping of history
consistent with your current knowledge of the world.
Quentin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Mar 24 2006 - 07:40:21 PST