[ExI] Another reason why Platonism can't be true

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 23/02/2026 15:39, BillK wrote:
> Obviously, Ben and Jason are disagreeing because they are relying on different assumptions.
>
> Ben is sticking with the universe as we experience it. When you burn a book, that knowledge disappears until research replaces it with similar or alternative knowledge. Infinite undiscovered knowledge does not eternally exist in other universes, waiting to be brought into our universe.
> Unfortunately, Ben's assumptions cannot *disprove* other universes' existence. He can only say that nobody has seen or detected them.
>
> Jason, on the other hand, by stepping outside our universe, has an even greater task to prove that an infinity of other universes exists. Gaps in knowledge about our universe, like creation theory, quantum indeterminacy, etc., are not *proof* of other universes. This is a philosophical argument along the lines of 'turtles all the way down'. It may be the correct way to view an infinity of universes, but it can never be proved because, by definition, these universes lie outside our universe.


I'm not trying to say that there aren't other universes, not at all. That's orthogonal to my argument, which is basically that you can't have a language that consists of only verbs.

Or, to put it another way, you can't have a language that nobody speaks and that isn't written down or recorded in any way.

Or, a pattern of Xs without any Xs is a null concept. A pattern, in order to exist at all, /has to be applied to something/.

That's the simplest way I can think of to make my point.

It's not a matter of my experience, it's a matter of simple logic. If anyone wants to throw diaphanous elephantine equations at it, go ahead, it won't achieve anything, you can't break logic.

-- 
Ben