If logic and math including probability Theory can describe a non-fatalistic universe then the universe would actually be non-fatalistic. I believe the universe can be described using math and physics but the deeper we go the further we will get nowhere if we assume hopefully correctly that the universe is non-fatalistic. What I am saying is we cannot describe the non-fatalistic aspects of the universe with any soundness correctness or accuracy using logic or math including probability. Probability is a mathematical concept and when applied to reality it is somewhat sketchy to say the least . I am very confident that you will find these words correct I am also confident that they are correct let me quantify how confident I am in my humble opinion.

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 9:12:25 AM UTC-4, Simon Roberts wrote:
> If logic and math including probability Theory can describe a non-fatalistic universe then the universe would actually be fatalistic. I believe the universe can be described using math and physics but the deeper we go the further we will get nowhere if we assume hopefully correctly that the universe is non-fatalistic. What I am saying is we cannot describe the non-fatalistic aspects of the universe with any soundness correctness or accuracy using logic or math including probability. Probability is a mathematical concept and when applied to reality it is somewhat sketchy to say the least . I am very confident that you will find these words correct I am also confident that they are correct let me quantify how confident I am in my humble opinion.

On 10/19/2022 8:12 AM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> If logic and math including probability Theory can describe a non-fatalistic universe then the universe would actually be non-fatalistic.

logic and math are man's constructs. they have no influence on the universe.

>I believe the universe can be described using math and physics

I think math/physics can model parts of it with error.

> but the deeper we go the further we will get nowhere if we assume hopefully correctly that the universe is non-fatalistic. What I am saying is we cannot describe the non-fatalistic aspects of the universe with any soundness correctness or accuracy using logic or math including probability.

agree.

>Probability is a mathematical concept and when applied to reality it is somewhat sketchy to say the least . I am very confident that you will find these words correct I am also confident that they are correct let me quantify how confident I am in my humble opinion.

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 8:28:29 AM UTC-7, Sergi o wrote:
> On 10/19/2022 8:12 AM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > If logic and math including probability Theory can describe a non-fatalistic universe then the universe would actually be non-fatalistic.
> logic and math are man's constructs. they have no influence on the universe.
> >I believe the universe can be described using math and physics
> I think math/physics can model parts of it with error.
> > but the deeper we go the further we will get nowhere if we assume hopefully correctly that the universe is non-fatalistic. What I am saying is we cannot describe the non-fatalistic aspects of the universe with any soundness correctness or accuracy using logic or math including probability.
> agree.
> >Probability is a mathematical concept and when applied to reality it is somewhat sketchy to say the least . I am very confident that you will find these words correct I am also confident that they are correct let me quantify how confident I am in my humble opinion.

What do you think about Tegmark? How about the holographic principle?

Your statement anti-Platonism is quite rejected. No, you don't get to pick..

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 11:56:00 AM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 8:28:29 AM UTC-7, Sergi o wrote:
> > On 10/19/2022 8:12 AM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > > If logic and math including probability Theory can describe a non-fatalistic universe then the universe would actually be non-fatalistic.
> > logic and math are man's constructs. they have no influence on the universe.
> > >I believe the universe can be described using math and physics
> > I think math/physics can model parts of it with error.
> > > but the deeper we go the further we will get nowhere if we assume hopefully correctly that the universe is non-fatalistic. What I am saying is we cannot describe the non-fatalistic aspects of the universe with any soundness correctness or accuracy using logic or math including probability.
> > agree.
> > >Probability is a mathematical concept and when applied to reality it is somewhat sketchy to say the least . I am very confident that you will find these words correct I am also confident that they are correct let me quantify how confident I am in my humble opinion.
> What do you think about Tegmark? How about the holographic principle?
>
> Your statement anti-Platonism is quite rejected. No, you don't get to pick.
I thought I was a platinist and by the way you look a lot different than I had imagined

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 9:12:25 AM UTC-4, simonro...@gmail.com wrote:
> If logic and math including probability Theory can describe a non-fatalistic universe then the universe would actually be non-fatalistic. I believe the universe can be described using math and physics but the deeper we go the further we will get nowhere if we assume hopefully correctly that the universe is non-fatalistic. What I am saying is we cannot describe the non-fatalistic aspects of the universe with any soundness correctness or accuracy using logic or math including probability. Probability is a mathematical concept and when applied to reality it is somewhat sketchy to say the least .. I am very confident that you will find these words correct I am also confident that they are correct let me quantify how confident I am in my humble opinion.

Actually, upon taking a measurement, such as 1.23 meters, the value is gray and so statistical. This is a conflict between mathematicians and physicists. To the mathematician 1.23 implies 1.23000... but this is definitely not true for the engineer or the physicist. Whether the continuum itself has this gray quality, then, becomes a question of interest.

Going back to how mathematicians establish the real number the rational value is not convincing. Division is not a fundamental operation. That the division of two integers magically yields a continuous value is not realistic.This act lacks closure, for one thing. Reinterpreting the decimal value so that the decimal point indicates a secondary unital position (it's direct meaning) exposes that every decimal value is in fact a natural value with a little dot added. The matter of precision as digit chasing is not so easily done in the physical world as it is on paper, but the fact of a sense of unknown; let's say on an experimental value such as G, is realistic. 6.67430(15)×10−11, as it stands now according to wikipedia. When your universal constants are due to change then you have a statistical system. Yes, it is hopefully a narrowing system, but ultimately it is as well an open system, as in open to future improvements and refinements. A grand upset would unify gravity and electromagnetism, let's say, and reverse attribute some of G to a charge density possibly. If many electrons fled to a black hole more easily than did the protons... and why would there even be a balance between the electrons and protons?