On Fri, Nov 9, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be
>> made to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move
>> and rotate in space.
> > I'm saying that there would be no such thing as objects, movement,
> space, or rotation in a comp universe.

I don't know what a "comp universe" is because I no longer know what "comp"
means and I no longer believe that Bruno, the inventor of the term, does
either.  But I do know that over the past year you have told this list that
information does not exist, and neither do electrons or time or space or
bits or even logic, so I don't see why the nonexistence of movement in a
"comp universe" or any other sort of universe would bother you.

> You can prove this by understanding that there are no objects or spaces
> actually moving around in the chips of your computer.

Electrons move around the chips in your computer, and potassium and sodium
ions move around the Cerebral Cortex of your brain.

>> make the Real numbers be the horizontal axis of a graph and the
>> imaginary numbers be the vertical axis, now whenever you multiply a Real or
>> Imaginary number by i you can intuitively think about it as rotating it by
>> 90 degrees in a counterclockwise direction.
> > Do you understand why computers don't need to do that?

I said a lot of stuff so I'm not sure what "that" refers to (sometimes
pronouns can really suck) but apparently you believe that computers have
some innate ability that humans lack, there is something computers already
know and so "don't need to do that".

I do know that computers calculate with complex numbers all the time,
especially when rotation in 3D is important, such as calculations involving
Maxwell's or Schrodinger's equation.

> This is my point, we have visual intuition because we have visual sense
> as a method of participating in a universe of sense. It would be
> meaningless in a universe of arithmetic.

I would maintain that computers are already far better than humans in
determining what a complex object will look like when it is rotated.

> I am saying, IF the universe were purely functional,

I don't know what that means, is the universe broken?

> Why would there even begin to be a theoretical underpinning for a
> universe which remotely resembles this one?

I don't have a theory that explains everything about the universe and
neither does anybody else, but unlike some I am wise enough to know that I
am ignorant.

  John K Clark

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