On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Roger Granet <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jason, > > >Do you believe there exist an infinite number of integers? If so I ask > you why should these very large numbers exist if >they require a physical > basis? There are numbers we cannot physically coceive of by virtue of their > size and the finite >size of the observable universe. If these large > numbers exist, they have no mental or physical existence here. > > Roger: I believe that a system exists in our minds that can abstractly > produce an infinite number of integers as well as can conceive of the number > pi. There may really be an infinite number of non-mind things. I think > there probably are, but we'll never be able to count them physically, so > we'll never be 100% sure. > I agree. In science we can never be 100% sure of anything. > There's a difference between saying that we can conceive of mathematical > concepts in our minds and whether or not these abstract truths actually > physically exist out there somewhere in this cavern of yours. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I don't know why you expect mathematical truth to have some kind of physical existence, nor what form you would expect such a physical existence to take (which is why I mentioned the caverns). > > >You ask us to point out the hidden cavern containing scribblings by god > for all mathematical truth before you can accept >its human-independent > existence. But as a scientist do you believe the past exists? How about > the space beyond the >cosmologicsl horizon? Other branches of the wave > function? Other universes implied by string theory? If so, why do >you > believe in them when it is provably impossible for anyone to point them out > for your eyes to see? > > Roger: I believe the past did exist but no longer does. Do you believe it > still exists in the here and now? > I believe the universe is four dimensional, as strongly implied by relativity. This implies that the you from 5 minutes ago exists 5 light-minutes away through the dimension of time. > I don't necessarilly believe in other universes, space beyond the > cosmological horizon. They may be there and they may not be. Current > evidence suggests they do exist, but as any scientist would say, we can't be > sure until we can observe them more directly. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > We may never observe them directly. We infer them from our theories, just like quarks (which have never been seen). Our mathematical theories imply the existence of things like integers. While we will never receive 100% certainty, why not (at least ambivalently) choose to bet on what is suggested by our best theories? > > >You asked why it is that whatever serves as the basis of reality exisys > rather than nothing. Arithmatic truth such as the >pimality of 17, or the > oddness of 9 cannot be any other way. These perfectly clear statements > about the numbers must >be either true or false, the status of the truth > cannot be undefined or non-existent. Or do you disagree? > > Roger: Arithmetic truths "cannot be any other way"? > I don't see any way 17 could be composite. Or that 9 could be even. Do you? > Many people use this argument for promoting all kinds of views. If you > can provide more directly observable evidence of where these truths exist > outside of all other physical things other than dogmatically repeating that > they do exist, I'd be more likely to agree with you. Until then, I > suggest that they don't exist outside of all other physical things, but I'll > let more evidence convince me either way. > Have you ever considered that what you hold as the supreme example of existence, the physical universe, might be a mathematical object? Could observers existing in that mathematical version of the universe ever decide if their existence was in a mathematical, rather than a physical universe? What difference could there be between them? Assuming mathematical existence is a simpler theory than believing both mathematical universes and physical universes exist. Further, it offers explains for both quantum mechanics, and why our universe is able to support life. While this may not be enough to convince you it is true, it should at least convince you to take the idea seriously. > > > Roger > > > There were a few questions you missed which would help me understand your position more clearly: If 17 has not always been prime, at what point do you think it become prime? During the big bang, when the 17-year cicada evolved, when humans began to count, when Euclid wrote about them, when mathematicians agreed upon a set of axioms, or at some other period? Do you think the 10^100th digit of Pi has a certain value, despite our ignorance of it? Thanks, Jason -- 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.
