On 12/16/2013 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto: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
    <mailto: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.

It does if you don't have an axiomatic definition of all those predicates such that satisfaction of the predicate is provable. Otherwise you're just assuming there's a mathematical description that implies existence. That might be true, but I think it's not knowable that it's true. It's like "the laws of physics".

Brent

--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to