On Jul 5, 10:06 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > On 04 Jul 2011, at 21:55, meekerdb wrote: > > > On 7/4/2011 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> The mathematical science is certainly not causally inert. Without > >> math, no chips, no internet, no man on the moon, etc. > > > But the form of argument, "Without X we wouldn't have Y, therefore X > > caused Y." is invalid. > > Agreed. But the notion of cause is not the notion of implication. I > was just saying that the use of human mathematics was responsible for > the acceleration of progress. The mathematical discovery of logarithms > has multiplied the travel distances. The existence of mathematics > change the world. And not just human mathematics. Any brain already > exists by virtue of some mathematical, representational, machine to > emulate other machine, leading to relative self-acceleration. > > I can understand that a materialist can still believe that the > mathematical reality does not act physically on our reality, but > mathematics acts, in that respect, by allowing the physical to obeys > mathematical laws, and some of those laws, to make sense, assume > primitive arithmetical law. The basic intuition of number is the idea > that we can distinguish something from something else. >

## Advertising

If I understand you correctly, this would mean that all physical matter, forces and energies are actually encoded with the same mathematical rules that the brain/mind/consciousness distinguishes using mathematics. Then would not brain/mind/consciousness itself be subject to the same rules? Are you stating that the rules (laws) themselves have some kind of dispositional property (like a magnet with positive and negative attraction poles)? Thanks Pzomby > > Consider, without space we wouldn't have gone to the Moon, therefore > > space caused us to go to the Moon. > > The point is that space makes it possible, to start with. > > > If you stretch causes to include everything that must have been the > > case for Y to happen then you end up with a meaningless plethora of > > causes: The universe caused Y. > > Addition and multiplication "causes" the belief in universes and > universe. The 8 'hypostases' from God (Arithmetical truth) to Matter > (what is sigma_1, provable, consistent, and true). > > > > > > > > >> And from inside the computationalist mindscape, the dynamics emerge > >> as internal (arithmetical) indexicals. But this is the fate of any > >> TOE, or better ROE (realm of everything, the theories themselves > >> only scratches the surface). > > >>> Yet it's existence is debatable and it's certainly interesting to > >>> discuss. And in any case, the elan vital was endlessly debate for > >>> centuries and was eventually discarded as nonexistent. > > >> Like mechanism justifies that the "material force" will be > >> discarded as non existent, but explainable in term of number > >> theoretical relations (coherent number's beliefs). > > > Forces are explainable by many things. I'll be more impressed when > > you predict one. > > It will take time before we get something like F = ma or the Feynman > integral, especially if people don't search. My point is only that it > is the only way to explain force without making the qualia disappear, > or without violating the comp principle, or without putting > consciousness under the rug. > > The point is not to submit a "new" physics, just a translation of a > problem into another problem, (complex, but purely mathematical). The > understanding of the arithmetical origin of the physical laws might > help to avoid senseless question. > > Physics is very mathematical by itself, and has already palpable > relation with number theory. An application of the bosonic string > theory = To prove the four squares theorem in number theory! > > The distribution of prime numbers might emulate a sort of quantum > computer. Even without comp, I find rather natural that the physical > laws expresses internally observable number symmetries. It might be > that the theory of finite simple groups is at play. But justifying > this by using the self-reference logics allows us to take into account > the first person perspectives of the relative numbers, and it should > explain the winning symmetries by a measure argument. Meanwhile it > gives a different (non aristotelician picture of the "ontological > everything" (I will called that the realm, or the ROE, the ontology of > the everything). > > Now we can like that, dislike that. Take time to swallow, I don't > know. Comp might be false. We have to keep this in mind. Comp might be > true with a very low substitution level. The level could be so low > that it is virtually very similar to materialism (and in practice it > makes the digitalist doctor inexistant). > > What I do like in comp, and in the universal machine discourse, it the > theory of virtue (the type Dt). It is really a sort of vaccine about > the argument by authority. It makes the universal machine a sort of > universal dissident. *you* are your own best guru, if you look twice > (inward). > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.