On 04 Mar 2012, at 17:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

## Advertising

Bruno,Actually it is not a joke. I guess it is my first step towardPlatonia. As I am a chemist by background, the problem might be notmathematically correct indeed. Yet, if you could help, we couldimprove it in this respect.The background is as follows. I am a chemist and I am still at thelevel of what you refer to as physicalism or mechanism.

`Hmm... You should read more carefully the post. On the contrary I`

`claim, and explain, that mechanism and physicalism are incompatible.`

`I am aware that physicalist, naturalist and materialist tend to use`

`mechanism as a sort of modern way to put the mind under the rug.`

`You can see all what I am talking about as an explanation that not`

`only mechanism does not solve the mind-body problem, but on the`

`contrary, it leads to the falsity of physicalism and the necessity to`

`explain where the physical (and physicalist) *belief* come from.`

`Mechanism entails the negation of physicalism. That's what the UDA is`

`all about.`

`The physical reality is not the fundamental reality. The physical`

`reality will reappear as the way the border of the mathematical`

`reality looks when seen form inside, from some points of view`

`(actually the points of view of predicting measurement values).`

`I can argue that with comp, concerning the basic ontological level, it`

`is absolutely undecidable if there is anything more than the numbers,`

`that is 0, the successor of zero, the successor of the successor of`

`zero, ...`

`And every lawful thing is deducible from the laws of addition and`

`multiplication (that you have learn is school, and certainly apply in`

`chemistry).`

`So, with mechanism, physics is not the fundamental science. Physics`

`has to be reduced to digital machine (number) biology, psychology,`

`theology (given that non provable truth have a big role in the origin`

`of matter).`

Before I consider your theorem, first I would like to understandbetter in my own terms what physicalsim and mechanism mean and whatare the limits. When you talk about this, it is too fast for me.

`You have to do the thought experiment. You have to admit the`

`hypothesis, if only for the sake of the argument.`

According to a common view in natural sciences, a human being (andhence mind) has been created during evolution.

`Something like that might be locally correct, but appears to be wrong`

`in the comp (digital mechanist) theory.`

Right now however, after following discussion here, I have a problemwith mathematics along this way. Science has been pretty successfulwith mathematical models in physics, chemistry and even in biology.Yet, according to my current view, mathematics has been created bythe mankind. Thereafter I have got suddenly a question, whymathematical models (physical laws) are working at all to describethe Universe when there was no mind. The mathematics, it seems, wasnot there at the times of Big Bang.

`You might confuse mathematics, branch of human science, and the`

`possible mathematical reality.`

`The mathematical reality does not depend on the physical reality, and`

`a large part of it might no depend on the human mind.`

`For example the fact that 17 is prime, is a mathematical fact which`

`does not depend on the presence of human. It is just the fact that a`

`line of 17 distinguishable objects cannot be cut in a finite of part`

`to be reassembled into a rectangle different from the line itself. For`

`example 8 is not prime because the line`

. . . . . . . . can be cut and become . . . . . . . .

`You might convince you experimentally that 17 is prime in this way,`

`but you can also prove it entirely as a consequence of the laws of`

`addition and multiplication. No concept of physics enter in this at`

`all. You might *apparently* need a physical reality to convince a`

`human being that 17 is prime, but you don't need to refer to it to`

`transmit the concept of prime number, despite it can helps for the`

`intuition, like above.`

We cannot repeat Big Bang to understand this.

`Remember that we (try) to be scientist, meaning that we cannot commit`

`ourself ontologically, except by making clear our postulate. The big-`

`bang theory is a theory, an hypothesis, which usually assume an`

`ontological (primitively existing) universe.`

With mechanism, that theory is already refuted by UDA+MGA.

`What is the big bang, then. Open problem. Most plausibly a first`

`person plural sharable computational state of some universal number.`

According to the current economic situation, it is highly unlikelythat taxpayers are ready to spend money on bigger and biggerparticle accelerators. Hence my proposal. If we cannot repeat BigBang, then for a relatively small budget we could make easily alocal heat death of a small Universe with two mathematicians and seewhat happens with mathematics there. In a way, we repeat evolutionin the reverse direction.

I can see you don't like mathematician! :)

It would be nice to exclude mind out of consideration at all but asthis is impossible my goal was to reduce its role as possible. Weknow that mathematics is what mathematicians do.

`Some constructivist mathematicians might agree, but most`

`mathematicians consider that they explore territories. They consider`

`that they make discoveries. Most discoveries are unexpected.`

`especially after Gödel, it is hard to defend a conventionalist`

`philosophy of math. And the, just to define what could mean`

`"mechanism", you need to assume that the arithmetical truth is more`

`primary than the mathematicians, if only to model mechanist`

`mathematicians by (Löbian) numbers. The you can distinguish the math`

`produce by the number, and the math of the number.`

Pi is a nice number

`But it is a real number. I prefer to exclude them of the ontology,`

`because they have the same fate as matter. If they have an ontological`

`existence, it will not change anything in the machine (number)`

`epistemology. So they are like invisible horses, and with occam, you`

`can exclude them. Natural numbers will belief in real number,`

`independently of any of their ontological status.`

and most of taxpayers have heard about it. In the experiment wecould allow mathematicians to write the prove that Pi exists on apaper, it would be even simpler. If you think that some othermathematical object would be nicer, please make your suggestion.

It is very weird, here.

So, at the beginning of the experiment we have mind (two workingbrains of mathematicians) and they prove on the paper that a givenmathematical object exists. An open question to discuss is whathappens with this mathematical object at the end of the experiment.

`Mathematical objects are invariant. Nothing happens to them. Things`

`can happen to them, in a relative sense, by the intermediate of true`

`relation bearing on them.`

`If you divide 8 by 4, this gives 2. But 8 remains untouched by that`

`operation. It is just that it is true that there exist a number which`

`multiplied by 4 gives 8, and that such a number is 2 (the nickname for`

`the successor of the successor of 0).`

`Mathematical object are structured only by their relations, and this`

`in a way which does not depend on time, space, animals, humans, or`

`whatever. Indeed, that is why math is useful to describe atemporally`

`even temporal relation, by a function of the type y = f(t).`

`But all questions require a precise theory in the background, and if`

`what I say don't help, you might think about formalizing a bit more`

`the background you are using.`

Bruno

Evgenii On 04.03.2012 14:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:On 04 Mar 2012, at 13:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:An experiment to perform in order to prove experimentally whether Pi exists independently from the mind The idea came during discussion on embryophysics list http://groups.google.com/group/embryophysics/t/419d3c1fec30e3b5 Below there is a description of the experiment that one could think of to check the relationships between Mathematics, Mind and Nature (the MMN experiment). In my view this could be done as a real experiment (so this is actually not a thought experiment) provided we find two mathematicians who agree to sacrifice their life for science. I believe that this should be not that difficult provided the importance of the experiment for the modern science. Let us take a completely isolated bunker where the experiment begins. The initial conditions are enough so that mathematicians can comfortably chat for awhile with each other about Pi and prove that it exists. Eventually the oxygen in the bunker will run over and both mathematicians die. From a viewpoint of a natural science, we have a dynamical system that eventually comes to the equilibrium state. I assume that at the beginning when mathematicians prove that Pi exists we have a consequence of physical states where Pi exists indeed. If you are in doubt, please suggest any other physical states where you say that Pi exists. The goal of the experiment is to establish what happens with Pi at the end when the system reaches the stationary state. Because of experimental settings, we can neglect the interaction with environment and I hope that this could be done even for the quantum mechanics treatment. Before the experiment will be perform in real, you can take your bet on whether Pi is retained after the death of mathematicians or not.I confess I cannot make any sense of what you say here. What do you mean by "Pi is retained", how do you verify this (after the death of the mathematicians)? Also, what is the initial theory that you have to use to interpret the experience? I have no clue of the meaning of "I assume that at the beginning when mathematicians prove that Pi exists we have a consequence of physical states where Pi exists indeed". "consequence of physical states where Pi exists" contains too many vague abuse of languages. When mathematicians proves that Pi exists, they assume a lot (real numbers, circles, length of enough smooth curves, set theory, etc.). Usually, they don't prove that Pi exist, they assume that all Cauchy sequences define some number, called "real number", and they show that curves sufficiently smooth have a length definable by such a sequence. Then they define Pi, by the ratio of the length of a circle with its diameter, and build the Cauchy sequence defining it. And also, why those two poor mathematicians have to die? Is not Earth close enough, and the death of Archimedes enough? (assuming the rest makes sense). You might just be joking, perhaps. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.