On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:01 AM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Things don't need to move to compute, there just need to be well defined
> > relations between the bits.
> And every computation either stops or doens't? There seems
> to me a mismatch between timelessness and computation.

Not at all.  Consider the analogy with a universe:  It either is infinitely
long in the time dimension or finite.  This doesn't preclude block time.

> > >  some of these bit patterns become self-reproducing, and may even
> evolve
> > > into more complex bit patterns, which are better able to reproduce
> > > themselves.  Some of these bit patterns may even evolve consciousness,
> as
> > > they build brains which attempt to discern and predict future
> observations
> > > of bit patterns within the number.  Let's call this function Universe.
> > > There may be bit patterns (life forms) in Universe(n) which improve
> their
> > > survival or reproductive success by correctly predicting parts of
> > > Universe(n+x).  There are number relations which define such sequences
> of
> > > numbers; you cannot deny their existence without denying the Fibonacci
> > > sequence or the number line (these are just simpler instances of
> recursive
> > > relations).
> >
> > > I can deny that the numbers exist the way tables and do and still
> accept
> > > that certain relations are true of them; just like I can accept that
> John
> > > Watson was a friend of Sherlock Holmes.
> >
> > Numbers, unlike fictional characters, are co-eternal with the universe,
> Meaning they end with the universe? Why assume that? What difference
> does it make.

The universe doesn't end (time as something we move through) only appears to
observers.  This is true with both the block universe view, and the "I exist
in some number relation" view.  It is easy to see how this view arises if
you consider the example I gave earlier with a life form developing through
the successive states of a recursive function.

> > if
> > not the cause of the universe.
> Causation requires events. Maths is timeless.
> > In that sense, they are just as concrete if
> > not more concrete than any physical object.  Your view is like that of a
> > being who has spent its whole life in a simulated virtual environment: It
> > believes the virtual reality and items in it are "more real" than the
> actual
> > computer which implements the virtual environment.  The beings only
> > justification for this belief is that he can't access that computer using
> > his senses, nor point is he able to point to it.
> >
> > Jason
> I think we all have  a pretty strong justification for the Real
> Reality
> theory in the shape of Occam's razor.
As I already said, both theories consequences "math exists primarily" or
"physics exists primarily" are equally verified by observation.  They are
equally scientific and make the same number of assumptions.  The question
then becomes: "Is it redundant to assume a primary existence in the physical
universe, if one accepts math exists independently of the physical world?"


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to