On Jul 22, 4:04 pm, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:08 AM, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 6:24 am, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:30 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ** > > > > On 7/21/2011 8:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >> On 7/21/2011 1:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >>> On 7/21/2011 11:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> > > 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, > > > > >>> That's the question. It seems that comp requires more than the > > > >>> existence of number relations, it requires the existence of a UD or > > > >>> equivalent. > > > > >> The Fibonacci sequence is, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, > > 144... > > > >> It is defined by the simple number relation Fib(n) = Fib(n-1) + > > Fib(n-2). > > > >> This is a simple recursive definition. You might even say the number > > line > > > >> has a simple recursive definition, where Number(n) = Number(n-1) + 1. > > > >> Different recursive definitions result in different sequences of > > numbers > > > >> (different ways of progressing through the integers). In some of > > these > > > >> definitions, bits patterns (within the number) may move around in well > > > >> defined ways, > > > > >> There's the rub. Nothing changes in Platonia. Nothing "moves > > around" or > > > >> "computes". Bit patterns are physical things, like 101101. Numbers > > are > > > >> not. > > > > > Nothing changes in physics either. Block time is the only consistent > > view > > > > given relativity. > > > > > Different t ==> different g_ab. > > > > Different N ==> different Fib(N) > > > > > That's change in physics. Anyway, GR must be incomplete since it's not > > > > compatible with QM. > > > > All the relevant parts of relativity which imply block time have been > > > confirmed. The above is like arguing against gravity because Newton's > > > theory wasn't compatible with the observations of Mercury's orbit. > > > > > Things don't need to move to compute, there just need to be well > > defined > > > > relations between the bits. > > > > >> 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, > > if > > > > not the cause of the universe. > > > > > That assumes numbers exist. > > > > It is no worse than assuming the physical universe exists. Both theories > > > are consistent with observation. > > > > > 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. > > > > > That's logically possible and maybe nomologically possible - but > > there's > > > > also not an iota of evidence for it. > > > > There is not one iota for evidence that matter is primary. > > > > On the other hand, mathematical truth seems to exist independently of > > > mathematicians, humans, and the universe itself. > > > Mathematical truth seems to be true independently of humans. > > It doens't seem to exist at all. We see things , not numbers. > > Of course, if the mathematical world is basically non existent, > > it would not covary with any else that existed. > > Much exists independently of humans that we cannot access with our senses. > Beyond the cosmological horizon, the past and future, other branches of the > wave function, and so on.
We don't have any physical theory requiring numbers to exist somewhere unseen. Luckily, we are able to use our reasoning to > access math, and it seems statements that are true, were true before we > realized it or found a reason for it to be true. > > > > > > > > > So my view is *also* like that of a being who has spent his whole > > life in > > > > this material universe. My justification for believing this (to the > > limited > > > > extent I do) is that it is a model consistent with everything known and > > has > > > > been successful all its predictions, from what I'll find in my > > refrigerator > > > > if I look, to the spectra of emissions of galaxies at z=20. The idea > > that > > > > I'm living in a computer simulation predicts everything and nothing. > > > > How is that any different from the idea of living in a physical universe > > > predicting everything and nothing? > > > > Also, I am not suggesting that you are in a computer simulation, only you > > > can't be sure our universe isn't a program or set of infinite program > > > proceeding platonically as number relations. > > > > Jason > > There's no Platonic proceding. > > Would you say the Fibonacci sequence does not have a progression? It does if it is computed, and it doesnt if it exists timelessly. > If there > were a life form (pattern) embedded in successive states of a recursive > function, would it not consider itself to be proceeding as it noticed itself > change through successive states? > > Jason How could an illusion of change even exist in a timeless Platonia? -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
