*Is it wrong to ask what the lattice is made of? Isn't some sort of 
substrate necessary for any mathematical event, whether it be a brain or 
a screen or a universe? And isn't that substrate sufficiently different 
from the math to be called physical existence? 

Kory Heath wrote
> Imagine an infinite two-dimensional lattice filled with the binary  
> digits of PI. (Start with any cell and fill in the digits of PI in an  
> outwardly-expanding square spiral.) Imagine the rules of Conway's  
> Life. We can point to any cell in this infinite lattice, and ask, "At  
> time T, is this cell on or off?" For any cell at any time T, there's a  
> mathematical fact-of-the-matter about whether or not that cell is on  
> or off.
> My essential position is that these mathematical facts-of-the-matter  
> play the role that "physical existence" is supposed to play for  
> materialists. If, within that mathematical description of Conway's  
> Life applied to the binary digits of PI, there are patterns of bits  
> (i.e. patterns of mathematical facts) that describe conscious persons,  
> I claim that those persons are in fact conscious (and necessarily so),  
> because those mathematical facts are as real as anything gets. They're  
> "all you need" for consciousness, and they're "all you need" for what  
> materialists call "physical reality". We can perform acts of  
> computation in our world in order to view some of those mathematical  
> facts, but those acts of computation don't create consciousness.
> -- Kory
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to