On Tue, July 19, 2011 23:53, doug foxvog said:
> On Tue, July 19, 2011 10:16, Matthew West said:
>> As far as possible worlds is concerned you should also look at
>> multiverses ...
> But such multiverses, in my understanding, are intrinsically undetectable
> from our universe and can not affect it. Therefore, they have no
> predictive value (01)
the scientific utility of the concept of multiverses is to obviate the
necessity to explain why OUR universe has certain properties. The idea
is that there are universes with any set of properties imaginable (or not)
and the one we happen to be in happens to have the properties which it
does have. Such an explanation means scientists do not have to explain
why various laws or constants (such as speed of light) obtain. (02)
Some scientists see this as an argument that there is no reason to
determine the reason for basic concepts and laws, feeling a need for
trying to determine such otherwise. As such there can be seen a
utility of such a model for cutting off areas of scientific inquiry.
But this does not mean that there is a utility of multiverse models
for reasoning about occurrences in our universe. (03)
-- doug (04)
> and thus could be considered non-scientific. It is
> similarly impossible to prove that the universe did not come into
> a millisecond ago (with all particles having positions and momenta that
> suggest a universe of an age of ~14 billion years.
> Neither theory is useful for an ontological description of any given
> state of affairs that is not specifically dealing with such a theory.
> -- doug foxvog
>> Matthew West
>> Information Junction
>> Tel: +44 1489 880185
>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>> <http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
>> and Wales No. 6632177.
>> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
>> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>> Sent: 19 July 2011 11:17
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most
>> are fuzzy)
>> Dear Matthew,
>> The point I'm trying to make is that possible worlds don't exist. They
>> imaginary. The way you imagine them is to create some hypothesis,
>> axioms, or specifications that generate them.
>> The so-called extensional methods are superfluous. Whatever hypothesis
>> formed to generate the possible worlds contains all the information
>> necessary to derive whatever conclusion you could get by analyzing the
>> of worlds.
>> In short, the starting hypothesis is intensional. The possible worlds
>> useless baggage. They might give you some pleasure in your imagination.
>> They might even be useful as illustrations. But the method of forming
>> initial specification for the worlds is intensional.
> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
> - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (06)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (08)