On 02 Jul 2012, at 20:21, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs and people and numbers,

Chairs and people are also mathematical objects, just really complex ones with a large information content. This is the necessary conclusion of anyone who believes physical laws are mathematical.

No, it's a necessary conclusion of anyone who cannot distinguish a description from the thing described.

I think the identity of indiscernibles applies: If no distinction can ever be made (by observers within a mathematical universe and observers within a physical universe) then there is no distinction. You are using "physical" as an honorific, but it adds no information.

I agree, but Brent's remark was not instrumentalist, but metaphysical. For some reason he seems to want physics being fundamental, and even if we cannot distinguish physical and mathematical universe, the distinction can still make sense in abstracto. But with comp we have really no choice. We can give a role of matter, in the observation of matter, only by making the mind non Turing emulable.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to