On 7/20/2012 12:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    On 7/19/2012 7:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

    On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Stephen P. King
    <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

        To fix a typo

        On 7/19/2012 3:46 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
        Dear Bruno,

            I need to slow down and just address this question of
        your as it seems to be the point where we disconnect from
        understanding each other.

        On 7/19/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
        At this stage I will ask you to define "physical".

            The physical is the represented as the sum of
        <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incontrovertible> facts
        that mutually communicating observers have in common.

Some might say the only incontrovertible fact is "I think therefore I am" but this can't be communicated.

    So 2 is prime is physical?

    Hi Jason,

        Any physical implementation that communicates "2 is prime" is,

Where in physics does the 48th Mersenne Prime exist? How will it be communicated to its discoverer?

How would I know that? You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "exist" that I am using. Could you give us your definition of it?

    The symbols that you are re3ading here, that are communicating to
    you are physical, no? Is this somehow being overlooked?

You and I might agree on the incontrovertibly that there are an infinite number of primes, but some (an infinite number) are too big for us to communicate in the lifetime of the universe. According to your theory of "to exist is to be communicated between two observers", there would be only a finite number of primes (those short enough to be communicated before the heat death of the universe).

You obviously believe that the finite universe that you observe is all that exists. I don't. I also do not mistake potential infinities from actual infinities. They are different.

    What about uncertainties, like string theory, or many worlds?
     Would those be nonphysical?

        Indeed! If they can neither be experienced nor communicated
    then they are by this definition unphysical. This is not unusual.
    There are many solutions to accepted physics equations that are
    similarly considered "unphysical" without any controversy.

Would the "physical world" for two observers A and B, be different from two observers C and D?

Maybe, if C and D where perpetually incommunicado from A and B. Event horizons have interesting consequences.

        It is those facts that cannot be denied without introducing
        contradictions, thus such things as "hallucinations" and
        "mirages" are excluded. I guess that this definition might
        seem tautological, but it seems to me to be the explanation
        that has the longest reach in its power to explain what is
        meant by the word. Additionally, physical refers to "objects
of the world"

    What do you mean by "the world"?

    Earth, This Hubble Volume, Everything beyond it in all dimensions
    forever, all branches of the wavefunction, all possible string
    theories, all self-consistent structures?

        Any and all of those that satisfy the definition that I gave
    above. It seems that people like axiomatic definitions, so have
    some. ;-P The point is that without observers that act as the "to
    whom meaning obtains" there is no such thing as meaningfulness.
    This is my thumbnail argument against Platonism and any other
    idealist ontology.

Could you clarify the argument?  I don't understand it.

    Maybe you don't wish to understand. That is your choice.

    Abstracting away the entity to whom meaning exists is just
    inverted semantic externalization
    and is equally fallacious. We can communicate all day about
    things, including ourselves, as if they don't exist, but this does
    not change any facts.

Just above you said communication is a requirement for physical existence.

Yes, but it is not the only requirement. Did you note the word " incontrovertible"? Mutual consistency and communication are weak requirements, but strong enough to to the job. It is how they are achieved that is the fun part.



"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

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