Per definitionem, possibilities don't ontologically exist, but inaccessible parts of the universe might well be implemented.
But if you don't need to explain infinite amounts of bits, why would you want to burden the cosmic pattern generator with infinite complexity?
-
-
As with most of the mathematical infinities: Assuming no end is often easier to state than to assume one, as the latter is concrete. (So called „potential infinity“ is often just the refusal to specify a concrete termination.)
-
Yes, as with all agnosticism we must remain undecided about affairs for which we cannot obtain evidence. However, some possibilities require more expensive assumptions than others, so we should be biased accordingly.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.