I agree with Jason!
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 12/16/2013 10:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Paul King < >> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: >> >>> Yes, but why are you being anthropocentric? >>> >> >> I thought that was your position, or at least (observer-centric), in >> that numbers only have properties when observed/checked/computed by some >> entity somewhere. >> >> >>> If there can exist a physical process that is a bisimulation of the >>> computation of the test for primeness, then the primeness is true. >>> Otherwise, we are merely guessing, at best. >>> >> >> When we check the primaility of some number N, we may not know whether >> or not it is prime. However, eventually we run the computation and find >> out either it was, or it wasn't. >> >> My question to you is when was it determined that N was or was not >> prime? Any time we re-check the calculation we get the same result. >> Presumably even causally isolated observers will also get the same result. >> If humans get wiped out and cuttlefish take over the world and build >> computers, and they check to see if N, is prime is it possible for them to >> get a different result? >> >> My contention is that it is not possible to get a different result, >> that N was always prime, or it was always not prime, and it would be prime >> (or not prime) even if we lacked the means or inclination to check it. >> >> >> That's fine. But it's a leap to go from the truth value of 17 is prime, >> to 17 exists. That's what I mean by mathematicians assuming that >> "satisfying a predicate" = "exists". >> >> > All you need are truth values. If it is true that the recursive function > containing an emulation of the wave function of the Hubble volume contains > a self-aware process known as Brent which believes he has read an e-mail > from Jason, then it is true that the aforementioned Brent believes he has > read an e-mail from Jason. We don't need to add some additional "exists" > property on top of it, it adds nothing. > > Jason > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.