Dear Brent,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/18/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 18 January 2014 19:51, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1/17/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 18 January 2014 19:12, meekerdb <[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. > Not so cotton-picking fast! Where is discussion of the proofs of said "necessarily true" maths? I could be handed a papyrus scroll covered with indecipherable chicken scratch and need to find a way to "prove" that it is a theory of Green Eggs and Ham. How do I get that proof? What about math theories whose equations are relations between ginormous prime numbers and I have to factor them to extract a proof of this or that statement in the theory? Are they necessarily true? Truth does not come from a fancy looking stamp marked QED by Professor Ultimum Mentalium. No. I am more inclined to believe Jaakko Hintikka's proofs by games idea<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.113.4434%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=0EXbUvmBAab82gXGpYGgCg&usg=AFQjCNGrbPBN8DSGZVxqMJxe8SQLus96qA&sig2=zYBfctDNKNTwV-4QfpIUWg&bvm=bv.59568121,d.b2I> . > > > >> 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. > Yes, there is that possibility. We humans are very good at deluding and lying to ourselves and each other. > > -- 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.
