>Roger: When you say "Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons", this was
>the very point I was making. I don't >think there can exist mathematical
>truths in some platonic realm somewhere. They're in the mind, which is a
>This is something you assume. It is not obvious, and provably false if we
>assume that brains are Turing emulable at >some level such that we would
>survived through such an emulation. (this is not entirely obvious, and I
>explain this from >times to times on the list, but you can also take a look on
>the papers in my url).
Roger: I agree that this is an assumption; although, I'd say it's also an
assumption that mathematical truths exist somewhere outside of all other
physically existent things. I realize now from later in your email that you
also don't think these truths exist separate from all other physically existent
things (?), but it seems like many physicists and mathematicians do think they
exist outside of all other physical things.
>I don't see how you answered this above. I do see that you assume a physical
>reality. But I don't see how you explain >the numbers from that, still less
Roger: While I admit explaining the numbers isn't the area I think about the
most, it seems like if you have a set of existent states in which some
intelligence developed, this intelligence would see the presence of a single
existent state and could equate that to the number 1, the existence of another
one next to it to a total of two, etc.?
>But biochemical activity is explained by quantum mechanics, which is Turing
>emulable, and so this, by the UDA result, >makes phsyicalism wrong. In fact QM
>can be (and, assuming we are machine, has to be) explained by addition and
>>multiplication. That has been partially done. Contrariwise, nobody has been
>able to explain how consciousness can be >the product of anything described by
>third person notions.
Roger: But, many question whether or not quantum mechanics is the one theory
that can explain all of reality, so I'm not convinced that all biochemical
activity is explained by quantum mechanics.
>But that assumption is used commonly in physics. If "1+1=2" can be derived
>from physics, without assuming it, then >please show this to me. You might
>begin to give me a physical definition of what is 1, without assuming the
>usual >arithmetical meaning of 1.
Roger: I'm not clear how the existence of a single physical object/existent
state can't be described by an intelligence as the number 1. Then the
existence of another object next to it, and that intelligence can get 1+1=2.
But, I'd agree that you need the intelligence to make up this addition system.
I guess where we disagree is in that I think intelligence/mind is entirely
made of these physical objects, and you don't?
Overall, thanks for all the interesting things to think about in my
physical brain! :-)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at