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

`On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM, 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?
>

Are you asking for spatial coordinates? I don't know what kind of answer
would satisfy that question. It exists as a member in the collection of
mathematical truth; it has no spatial or physical coordinates.

> X has to be conscious of a location, a physics, etc.
>

All that is necessary for it to be conscious of a location or a physics,
(assuming that is necessary), can exist in the mind of X. Or maybe X is
part of a still larger program, which provides the information of Y.

> 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.
>

This is about more than descriptions or what is describable. If
mathematical statements are true independent of anything else then
mathematical truth can serve as the basis of all that we consider to be
real.

Jason

--
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