>Assume both matter and number relations exist.  With comp, the existence of
>number relations explains the existence of matter, but the existence of
>matter does not explain the existence of number relations.  It is therefore
>a simpler theory to suppose the existence of number relations is fundamental
>and the appearance of matter is a consequence, than to suppose both exist
>independently of each other.

How does the existence of number relations really explain the material
qualities of matter though? Would that mean that in all possible
universes a proton is a proton and 79 protons is gold? Is water a
mathematical inevitability independent of our macroscopic experience
of water?

On Jul 21, 2:03 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >>  Axiomatics are already in Platonia so of course that forces computation
> >>> to be there.
>
> >> The computations are concrete relations.
>
> > If the are concrete then we should be able to point to them.
>
> If your mind is a computer, you don't even need to point to them, everything
> you see and experience is direct evidence of the existence of the
> computation implementing your mind.
>
> Also, I don't think the "point test" works for everything that has a
> concrete existence.  How would a many-worlder point to the other branches of
> the wave function, or an eternalist point to the past?  How would an AI or
> human in a virtual environment point to the concrete computer that is
> rendering its environment?
>
>
>
> >  They don't need axioms to exist. Then the numbers relation can be
> >> described by some axiomatic.
>
> > And one can regard the numbers as defined by their relations.  So the
> > "fundamental ontology" of numbers is reduced to a description of relations.
>
> Is a chair the same thing as a description of a chair, or an idea of a
> chair?
>
> > The is no need to suppose they exist in the sense of tables and chairs.
>
> Assume both matter and number relations exist.  With comp, the existence of
> number relations explains the existence of matter, but the existence of
> matter does not explain the existence of number relations.  It is therefore
> a simpler theory to suppose the existence of number relations is fundamental
> and the appearance of matter is a consequence, than to suppose both exist
> independently of each other.
>
> Jason

-- 
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.

Reply via email to