[ajuc]

One one hand it's absurd (it means that everything that can be imagined and many more things exist).

On another hand the opposite (requiring a mapping from that computation to real-world objects) is absurd too, because for any sequence of numbers you can always find a mapping to physical objects (notice that you can make the mapping arbitrarily complex). So why require the extra steps?

My opinion is that it follows that asking about existence without specifying the domain in which sth exists is meaningless.

You can say that the number 42 exists in the domain of integers. You cannot say whether the number 42 exists in general. It wouldn't mean anything.

Similarly you can say that Harrison Ford exists in our universe but Han Solo doesn't. But you cannot say whether one or the other exist in general.

[russdill]

The insistence that some "real" universe exists does strike me as a kind of dualism, but I'm unable to describe the concept with any rigor.

[ajuc]

Should have said "physical" not "real" probably. I didn't meant to imply it's more "real" than the integers or any other domain, my point was that you have to specify the domain and that there are many options.