# Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 18 January 2014 19:12, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 1/17/2014 8:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>  On 1/17/2014 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  But apparently the brain has a lot to do with those computations in
>>> Platonia, c.f. anesthetic.  Notice that I'm not a disciple of Platonia.
>>>
>>
>>  Me neither, I am agnostic - but within comp it is assumed, so while
>> discussing comp we have to assume it (unless we're rejecting comp on that
>> basis). But I can see that Platonia makes sense in that 17 does seem to be
>> prime idependently of you and me and everyone else, which is (I'm told)
>> enough for the whole shebang to come into some sort of existence.
>>
>>
>>  I don't think you have to buy the equivalence between (17 is prime) is
>> true and (17 is prime) exists.
>>
>
>  No, but all statements about programs can be translated into truth
> statements about the natural numbers. So you could say "Program X is
> conscious of the information Y" is a true statement, and that truth implies
> that the conscious thought of X exists. (Just as the primeness of 17
> implies two factors of 17 exist).
>
>
> But where does it exist?  X has to be conscious of a location, a physics,
> etc.  If all this is the same as where I exist, then it is just a
> translation of this world into arithmetic.  It's the flip side of "A
> perfect description of X is the same as X", i.e. "X is the perfect
> description of X".  If every perfect description is realized somewhere in
> arithmetic (and I think it probably is) nothing is gained by saying we may
> be in arithmetic.
>
> Don't we gain less entities, making Occam a bit happier? If we can get the
appearance of a universe without having to actually have one, can't we
"retire the universe" and just stick with the
"appearance-of-one-with-equal-explanatory-value" ? (Not an original idea,
of course, I'm fairly sure Max Tegmark said something along those lines
regarding his mathematical universe hypothesis -- that if the maths was
isomorphic to the universe, why bother to assume the universe was
physically there?).

--
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