Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)

On 03/24/2025 08:45 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 3/23/2025 10:48 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 3/23/2025 11:23 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/23/2025 10:33 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

>

⎜ It seems unreasonable for us to have
⎜ what could be called 'knowledge' about
⎜ conditions billions of years earlier or later
⎜ or billions of light.years away.
⎜ I put that down to mathematical argument
⎜ which reaches far, far beyond
⎜ anything our intuition might have to say,
⎜ but, because it's mathematical,
⎜ we know is imperishably bonded to this shape
⎝ which fits our much less extensive experience.

>
Oh, what about a mathematical universe hypothesis?

>
It might have something to do with fractals...
Perhaps, well, sometimes I think
we (our universe) might be contained within
a black hole residing inside our parent universe.
Two massive black holes might of merged in our parent,
there merger was "fertile",
and created us, perhaps?.
Our universe.
This is just thinking out loud here for fun. Whatever! ;^)

>
You aren't alone in asking questions like those.
>
For a very long time, there wasn't much evidence
to help in picking better or worse answers.
>
For example, Olbers' Paradox argues that
the universe is NOT the same
forever in all directions.
It argues that from the observation that
it's dark at night.
>
We have a little more useful.evidence today,
but it's like reconstructing an extinct species
from half a jawbone.
>
Fairly recent evidence is that
the universe is not expanding equally
in all directions.
That tips over a lot of apple carts.
Tipping.over is to be expected occasionally
when one paints "artist's conception" into
vast gaps between actual facts.
>
Along the lines of your thinking:
>
Suppose physics permits, in some universes,
a really advanced technology to bud off
baby universes, with some variation in constants.
Those life.friendly, civilization.friendly universes
would provide the lion's share of universes.
>
That's intended to explain why our universe
is so friendly to us. Pick a random universe.
Since (assuming blablablah) most are friendly,
you've most likely picked a friendly universe.
>
Sigh. But I feel like the ace of spades
has been palmed at some point, even if
I haven't spotted where.
>
A counter.argument points to the amazing precision
with which that puddle fits the hole it's in.
We do not explain that with super.technology.
Maybe our universe is friendly to us
because it's our universe,
and that's the end of the story.
>
>

Of course neither Big Bang nor Steady State are
falsifiable according to the usual tenets of
never violating time symmetry in physics and not
yet having found the end of the sidewalk or Flat-Earthers.
Either fit the data, any time, ....
The "Multiple Worlds Hypothesis" is a bit less
attached to realism than "Mathematical Universe
Hypothesis", furthermore it's entirely un-scientific.
It's a non-explanation, while, of course theory may
model the contingent, though only ever witness as
it were in a modal, temporal theory: the existant.