On 3/5/2012 9:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    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 to
    assume 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
    slow process they thought it could never be observed.  Some on this list 
have
    argued that the hypothesis 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.


The existence of all mathematical structures implies the existence of all programs, which is observationally indistinguishable from Bruno's result taking only the integers to exist.

That they are observationally indistinguishable is vacuously satisfied by them both being unobservable.

I find the existence of all consistent structures to be a simpler theory. If the integers can exist, why cant the Mandlebrot set, or the Calabi–Yau manifolds?

I didn't say that things descriable by those mathematics *can't* exist. I just said I don't believe they do. Yaweh *could* exist (and according to you does) but I don't believe he does.



    If instead we found our environment and observations of it to be perfectly
deterministic, this would have ruled out mechanism+a single or finite universe. Further, there is a growing collection of evidence that in most universes,
    conscious life 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 Bruno's theory, "physical universes" are considered observations of minds.

Hmm? Is that right? The UD* certainly must generate lots of programs without human-like consciousness, e.g. this universe in which dinosaurs weren't killed off. So I'm not clear on why there wouldn't be infinitely many universes without conscious beings.


Where I use the term, I refer to independent structures (both seen and unseen).

    In any case it doesn't warrant the conclusion that all possible universes 
exist.


No, it doesn't prove they all exist, just that there are perhaps infinitely many universes almost exactly like this one.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "independent structures". Independent of what? I don't see that referring to independent structures has anything to do with whether they exist.

Which, while not proving everything exists, is certainly something we would expect to find if indeed everything exists.

Of course it is trivial to say that an everything theory successfully predicts the existence of what we observe to exist. The question is whether it does the converse. Can it predict that we don't see some (almost all) things.


There are all these reasons and arguments that are compatible with and suggestive of the idea that all is out there. I haven't seen one offered piece of evidence from you that would suggest the idea of mathematical reality is false. So tell me: for what reason(s) do you reject the hypothesis?

I don't reject it; I just don't accept it.  It seems to ill defined to be 
testable.


      This can also be considered as confirmation of the theory that there 
exists a
    huge diversity in structures that have existence.  Just because one 
proposed test
    will not work should not imply a theory is untestable.

    A final thought: Consider what our universe would look like if you were a 
being
    outside it.  You would not be affected by the gravity of objects in our 
universe,
    for gravity only affects physical objects in this universe.  You could not 
see the
    stars or galaxies of our universe, for photons never leave it.  There would 
be no
    relativity of size, or time, or distance between your perspective and that 
within
    our universe.  You could not say what time it happened to be in our 
universe, or
    whether the world had even formed yet or long ago ended.  You could in no 
way make
    your presence known to us in this universe, for our universe is bound to 
follow
    certain fixed laws.  In summary, outside our universe there is no evidence 
we even
    exist; our entire universe is merely an abstract, 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
    computer simulation,

    I could study a mathematical or computational representation, but that's 
not the
    same as studying our universe - unless you beg the question.


Clearly we will not get proof of the mathematical universe hypothesis by seeing other universes and mathematical objects through telescopes. Different universes are independent in such a way that we can only access them as we access all other mathematical structures.

Ask yourself WHY they are inaccessible. Isn't it because if they were accessible then there would be contradictory facts in the world. And why can't there be contradictory facts? Because ex falso quodlibet. But "quodlibet" is what has already been hypothesized. (on the other hand see Graham Priest's "In Contradiction").

Also, if your model is perfect, there should be no difference between studying the model and the object it represents. In the future, we will be able to discover, emulate, and visit other universes by discovering them in math, and using sufficiently powerful simulations, know what it is like there, or whether or not life is possible.

Except if we are studying them or simulating them, then we can interact with them and (necessarily?) change them.


That we cannot affect them from our current location does not make them any 
less real.

"Affect" and "observe" are two different things (at least classically) and if we can neither affect or observe that makes them rather like Russell's teapot. We can't be sure it doesn't exist, but there's no reason to think it does.

That our universe is an immutable, abstract, timeless object to a being in a different universe does not imply we are any less real,

I'm not sure what being "an abstract object to a being" means, but I don't think it implies we are any more real.

that our experiences don't matter, or that the existence of the structure that is our universe is without consequence. Immutability says nothing about an objects reality; we cannot affect the past,

Unless the past was identical with the present then something has mutated.

or portions of our universe sufficiently far away, yet most would say these exist. Moreover, that other universes are currently inaccessible to us does not necessarily imply that they will always be immutable and inaccessible to us. There is always some non-zero possibility that when you wake up tomorrow, you won't find yourself in this universe, but one very far away.

So you say, but I'm betting not...and so are you.

The existence of all structures reconfirms, in a stronger senses, quantum immortality. If all the other universes are out there, then given mechanism, a we are all immortal. Unlike the immortality implied by quantum immortality, we can even survive destruction of this universe, waking up in a different one where the present one was just a very long dream.

I'm not sure I've survived the past year.

Brent
The person I was when I was 3 years old is dead. He died because
too much new information was added to his brain.
         -- Saibal Mitra

--
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.

Reply via email to