>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.

## Advertising

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.