On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM, acw <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/10/2012 14:01, Stephen P. King wrote: > >> On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote: >> >>> >>> Another way to think of it would be in the terms of the Church Turing >>>>> Thesis, where you expect that a computation (in the Turing sense) to >>>>> have result and that result is independent of all your >>>>> implementations, such a result not being changeable in any way or by >>>>> anything - that's usually what I imagine by Platonia. It is a bit >>>>> mystical, but I find it less mystical than requiring a magical >>>>> physical substrate (even more after MGA) - to me the platonic >>>>> implementation seems to be the simplest possible explanation. If you >>>>> think it's a bad explanation that introduces some magic, I'll respond >>>>> that the primitively physical version introduces even more magic. >>>>> Making truth changeable or temporal seems to me to be a much stronger, >>>>> much more "magical" than what I'm considering: that arithmetical >>>>> sentences do have a truth value, regardless if we know it or not. >>>>> >>>> [SPK] >>>> I am only asking that we put the abstract world of mathematics on an >>>> even footing with the physical world, I am _not_ asking for a >>>> "primitive" physical world. I will say again, just because a computation >>>> is independent for any particular implementation that I, you or any one >>>> else is capable of creating does not eliminate the necessity that >>>> somehow it must be implemented physically. Universality of computation >>>> is NOT the severing of computation from its physical implementability. >>>> This is not the same kind of claim as we see of the ultrafinitist and/or >>>> constructivist; it is just a realistic demand that ideas cannot be free >>>> floating entities. We cannot believe in free floating numbers any more >>>> than we can believe in disembodies spirits and ghosts. >>>> >>>> What is a non-primitive physical world, what is it based on? >>> 'Existence'? What is that, sounds primitive to me. If we accept >>> 'existence' as primitive, how does math and physical arise out of it? >>> It seems so general to me that I can't imagine anything at all about >>> it, to the point of being a God-like non-theory (although I can >>> sympathize with it, just that it cannot be used as a theory because >>> it's too general. We'll probably have to settle with something which >>> we can discuss, such as a part of math.) >>> Why is 'physical' implementation so important? Those "free floating" >>> numbers could very well represent the structures that we and our >>> universe happen to be and their truths may very well sometimes be this >>> thing we call 'consciousness'. As for 'spirits' - how does this >>> 'consciousness' thing know which body to follow and observe? How does >>> it correlate that it must correlate to the physical states present in >>> the brain? How does it know to appear in a robotic body or VR >>> environment if someone decides to "upload" their mind (sometime in the >>> far future)? What's this continuity of consciousness thing? >>> Granted that some particular mathematical structure could represent >>> the physical, I'm not sure it makes sense gran the physical any more >>> meaning than "that which we(our bodies) observe as being part of". >>> >> >> Hi ACW, >> >> A "non-primitive world" would be a world that is defined by a set of >> communications between observers, however the observers are defined. The >> notion of a "cyclical gossiping" as used in graph theory gives a nice >> model of how this would work and it even shows a nice toy model of >> thermodynamic entropy. See #58 here >> <http://books.google.com/**books?id=SbZKSZ-1qrwC&pg=PA32&** >> lpg=PA32&dq=cyclical+**gossiping+graph+theory&source=** >> bl&ots=NAvDjdj7u-&sig=**kk03XrGRBzdVWI09bh_-yrACM64&**hl=en&sa=X&ei=** >> jCI1T8TpM4O4tweVgMG_Ag&sqi=2&**ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=**false<http://books.google.com/books?id=SbZKSZ-1qrwC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=cyclical+gossiping+graph+theory&source=bl&ots=NAvDjdj7u-&sig=kk03XrGRBzdVWI09bh_-yrACM64&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jCI1T8TpM4O4tweVgMG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false> >> > >> for a statement of this idea. Also see >> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/**Gossiping.html<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Gossiping.html> >> >> A model which allows communication might be nicer to look at, but I > don't see why it's *required*. I also don't see how it predicts different > things than a model which just has a 'shared computation'/'shared > substrate' for each observer? > >> Onward! >> >> Stephen >> >> RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds of string theory that are purported to control all physical interactions as they each contain the laws of physics; and collectively they may manifest consciousness as well as perhaps Platonia and "cyclic gossiping" as their variable properties across the universe may manifest a Peano arithmetic. Regarding communication each spherical element/manifold instantly maps all the other manifolds and all physical phenomena to its interior. http://vixra.org/abs/1101.0044
> -- > 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<[email protected]> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ > **googlegroups.com <everything-list%[email protected]>. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> > . > > -- 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.
