On 14 January 2014 02:11, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> You first assume all mathematics somehow exists 'out there' independent of
> humans. If that were true and actual reality consisted of all math sitting
> there in some static state, then you might be correct, but this is an
> enormous unwarranted assumption with no empirical evidence.
The empirical evidence is 500 years of science based on maths, according to
Max Tegmark. If you don't believe in arithmetical realism, how do you
explain the "unreasonable effectiveness" of maths in the physical sciences?
> The much more useful model, the one I propose that actually mirrors the
> way reality works, is that reality math exists in an active state of
> computation, and is much less extensive than human math (only sufficient to
> compute actual natural processes). In this model everything is computed,
> and thus everything in the universe is computable because it IS actually
> computed. This means that the entire universe is a logical self-consistent
> and logically complete system. If it wasn't it would tear itself apart at
> the inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses and could not exist.
Time to formalise your theory.
> I hope at least you can now better understand how my computational reality
> differs from your 'comp', and why conclusions from your comp do NOT apply
> to my computational reality...
> Do you understand the difference now?
I've understood it for a while now. Comp is well defined, your theory isn't
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 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.