On 1/18/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 19:51, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 19:12, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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?).
I'm asking why have the maths?
Well (putting on my AR hat) we have it because the maths is /necessarily/ existent,
while the universe isn't.
I disagree. The maths are necessarily true, i.e. "axioms imply theorems" is true. But
why should that imply *existence*. We know we can invent all kinds of maths by just
changing the axioms or even changing the rules of inference. Sometimes people on this
list post the semi-mystic opinion that everything=nothing, pointing to the need for
discrimination. I look at this as saying positing everything is the same as saying nothing.
Of course there's an answer - we can manipulate the maths - but then
doesn't that
proves that the maths aren't the universe. They wouldn't be any use as
predictive
and descriptive tools if they WERE the things described. They are only
useful
because they are abstractions, i.e. they leave stuff out (like existence?).
Well .... the maths does have that "unreasonable effectiveness" (that you're probably
bored to death hearing about). And one reason for that could be because it is - in the
guise of some yet-to-be-discovered TOE - isomorphic to the universe.
Or it could be because we, denizens of this physics/universe, invent them.
Brent
In which case - should it ever prove to be the case - see above.
--
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
[email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
