On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> 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>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>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 >>> incontrovertible<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, yes. >> > > 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? > > This definition does not include first person views, so it is incomplete, but a partial definition for what exists might be something like: Something having objective properties that could be studied by independent entities, and the independent entities would come to the same conclusions about that thing. > > > >> 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 don't either. But you seemed to suggest observers depend on real physical implementations, so at best your theory of existence is based on some degree of circularity. Observers depend on "physics", but that physics depends on what observers can learn and communicate about that physics. If what exists is so observer-relative, every observers could come to a different conclusion about what exists, which doesn't seem like a very useful model. > 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. > > Thanks, that was helpful. > > > > >> Abstracting away the entity to whom meaning exists is just inverted semantic >> externalization<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6405/is_3_68/ai_n58511111/>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. > > > Even if it is only one of the requirements, the contridiction remains: "We can communicate all day about things, including ourselves, as if they don't exist, but this does not change any facts." "The physical is the represented as the sum of incontrovertible<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incontrovertible>facts that mutually communicating observers have in common." So depending the observers in question, and what they choose to communicate, what is "physical" changes. But then you say communication doesn't change any facts. So where does that leave the physical? A mutual, ever changing agreement between two or more entities? What was physical before the first observers evolved? This sounds a bit like Wheeler's participatory universe, wherein the universe comes into existence when the first conscious creature arrived, which is not too different from some Buddhist schools of thought, nor very different from Bruno's proof once one assumes mechanism and arithmetical realism. Jason -- 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.
