On Dec 8, 12:20 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 12/8/2011 10:18 AM, Pzomby wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 10:31 am, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: > > >>> Most materialist just say: Well, the natural laws are just there, without > >>> any particular reason or meaning behind them, we have to take them for > >>> granted. But this is almost as unconvincing as saying "A creator God is > >>> just > >>> there, we have to take him for granted". It makes no sense (it would be a > >>> totally absurd universe), and there also is no evidence that natural laws > >>> are primary (we don't find laws to describe the Big Bang and very > >>> plausibly, > >>> there are none because it is a mathematical singularity). > >> You are attributing a naive concept of physical laws to "we". Physical > >> laws are models we > >> make up to explain and predict the world. That's why they change when we > >> get new > >> information. Mathematical singularities are in the mathematics. Nobody > >> supposes they are > >> in the world. > > >> Brent > > Brent > > > You state: Physical laws are models we make up to explain and predict > > the world. Are properties of mathematics then dual, being both > > representational (models) and encoded (rules) as instantiated brain > > functions? > > Mathematics is a subset of language in which propositions are related by > rules of > inference that preserve "truth". We can use it to talk about all kinds of > things, both > real and fictional. We try to create mathematical models where possible > because then we > have the rules of inference to make predictions that are precise. Where our > models are > not mathematical, e.g. in politics or psychology, it's never clear exactly > what the model > predicts. > > I think the rules of inference are encoded in our brains. See William S. > Coopers book > "The Evolution of Reason". > > > > > In other words could the singularity in mathematics you refer to be > > further divided? > > The singularity I was referring to is the hypersurface of infinite energy > density and > curvature which general relativity predicts at the center of a black hole and > the Big > Bang. It is in the mathematical model - which only shows that the model > doesn't apply at > these extreme conditions. This was not a surprise to anyone, since it was > already known > that general relativity isn't compatible with quantum mechanics and is > expected to > breakdown at extremely high energies and short distances. > > Brent

Brent I was attempting to go down another layer of understanding as I see it. I will restate an abbreviated opinion: Numerals (mathematics) and languages are themselves fundamental instantiations of the laws/rules/inferences of truth… abstract mathematics representing the precise observed or discovered structure and order of the universe and the semantically less precise languages are used to interpret and communicate the mathematical models in descriptions and predictions of the universe. Mathematics...has multi faceted properties, being at least (1) representational numbers as in descriptively enumerated models as well as adjective position in spatiotemporal sequence (ordinals) and (2) computable numbers as in counting and arithmetic. Your statement: “I think the rules of inference are encoded in our brains”, This, I think, infers that primitive mathematics and languages are instantiated in the biological brain and can, *potentially*, represent or reflect any and all laws and rules fundamental to the real (even abstract) and fictional universe. The role of human embodied consciousness in any “theory of everything” is established by this fact. Mathematics may be “a subset of language” as you state or language could also be an extension or instantiation (as a concrete verbal idea) of what primitive mathematics represents (abstract rules/laws). In either case it becomes circular as to what is more relevant… mathematics or the language to understand what the mathematics represents or enumerates. It is my opinion that there is no singularity but a duality which roughly could be stated as both “a state of being” (quanta) and the “reason of being” (qualia) (access to abstract primitive laws/rules or as you state “newer information”). Perhaps monistic materialism and monistic idealism are semantically created notions that lack “newer information”. Thanks for your comments. > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.