On 3/5/2012 8:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:24 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:On 3/5/2012 4:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/5/2012 10:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 05.03.2012 18:29 meekerdb said the following: On 3/5/2012 3:23 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: The experiment takes an operational approach to what Pi means. During the initial stage of the experiment mathematicians prove the existence of Pi. When mathematicians 'prove the existence' of something they are just showing that something which satisfies a certain definition can be inferred from a certain set of axioms. In your example the mathematicians may define Pi as the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle in Euclidean geometry. But what does that mean if geometry is not Euclidean; and we know it's not since these mathematicians are in the gravitational field of the Earth. Mathematics is about abstract propositions. Whether they apply to reality is a separate question. Brent I agree that this assumption might not be the best one. I will think it over. However, I do not completely understand you. How the geometry of physical space in which mathematicians reside influences the definition of Pi? Mathematicians will consider just Euclidean geometry, that's it. In my view, whether the physical space Euclidean or not, does not influence the work of mathematicians. Exactly. Hence mathematics =/= reality. This is like comparing the kidney of a whale to a liver of a whale, and deciding whale=/=whale. You can't compare one limited subset of the whole (such as the local part of this universe) with another subset of the whole (euclidean geometry), and decide that the whole (of mathematics) is different from the whole (of reality).The same mathematicians in the same place could 'prove the existence' of the meeting point of parallel lines or that through a point there is more than one line parallel to a given line. So no matter what they measure in their bunker it will be consistent with one or the other. So you can only hold that mathematics=reality if you assume everything not self-contradictory exists in reality; Okay. but that was what the bunker thought experiment was intended to test.I fail to see how the bunker experiment tests this. The bunker experiment seems toassume that mathematical reality is or depends upon a physical representation.You've essentially made it untestable by saying, well it may fail HERE but somewhere (Platonia?) it's really true.People used to say Darwin's theory was untestable, because evolution was such a slowprocess they thought it could never be observed. Some on this list have argued that thehypothesis has already survived one test: the unpredictability in quantum mechanics.

`That specific retrodiction came from Bruno's hypothesis which is that universes are`

`generated by computation. What is computable is much less than all mathematics.`

If instead we found our environment and observations of it to be perfectlydeterministic, this would have ruled out mechanism+a single or finite universe.Further, there is a growing collection of evidence that in most universes, consciouslife is impossible.

`There's a popular idea that most possible universes are inhospitable to conscious life: a`

`theory that might well be false under Bruno's hypothesis in which consciousness and`

`universes are both realized by computation. In any case it doesn't warrant the conclusion`

`that all possible universes exist.`

This can also be considered as confirmation of the theory that there exists a hugediversity in structures that have existence. Just because one proposed test will notwork should not imply a theory is untestable.A final thought: Consider what our universe would look like if you were a being outsideit. You would not be affected by the gravity of objects in our universe, for gravityonly affects physical objects in this universe. You could not see the stars or galaxiesof our universe, for photons never leave it. There would be no relativity of size, ortime, or distance between your perspective and that within our universe. You could notsay what time it happened to be in our universe, or whether the world had even formedyet or long ago ended. You could in no way make your presence known to us in thisuniverse, for our universe is bound to follow certain fixed laws. In summary, outsideour universe there is no evidence we even exist; our entire universe is merely anabstract, immutable and timeless mathematical object.

That's a complete non sequitur.

From the outside, one could study our universe through the window of math and computersimulation,

`I could study a mathematical or computational representation, but that's not the same as`

`studying our universe - unless you beg the question.`

Brent -- 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.