On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:31 AM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 22, 3:59 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> What are computations *for*, if their results timeless exist
> somewhere?
>
>
A result out of context is meaningless information, what is needed is a
relation.


>
> >
> >
> > > > >  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.
>
> Nope. The things we see seem to be things, not numbers.
>

That they seem to be things is explained by the theory.  Again, consider the
example of a life form in a progression of numbers.  They are a pattern
which may receive information about other patterns, which exist within that
number.


>
> >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?"
> >
> > Jason
>
> Before that question, you need the question: does maths exist
> independently.
>
>
If you want to debate this question I am happy to.  It is the assumption
made by most mathematicians and scientists.

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