On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that >>>> from the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If >>>> something can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary. >>>> >>>> Could you explain? (I don't understand what's being said in any of the >> three sentences above, so would appreciate a "blow by blow" explanation if >> that's OK). >> >> By saying that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness, I mean that all > mathematical expressions are intentional communication of a conscious > appreciation of symbolic relations. >
In itself, that looks like a confusion of the map with the territory. Fortunately, however, you have a lot more to say on the subject... > If we start with disembodied mathematical concepts as realities in their > own right, then we are automatically smuggling in all kinds of assumptions > about what the universe comes with out of the box. Integers, operators, and > equivalence are the end result of a kind of manufacturing process which > includes a lot of ontological raw materials; sequence, representation, > symmetry, universality, ideal objects, participation in manipulating > formulas...lots of things which have no plausible origin within > mathematics. They are all figures of experience which are valid because of > aesthetic familiarity - because of the sense that cognitive awareness > furnishes us with. If math can do all of that by itself, then an additional > type of 'consciousness' would be redundant. > > That's a good point. At a slight tangent, it seems possible that the universe has some of these concepts built in (in some sense). This isn't an objection to what you're saying, but maybe it should be borne in mind, in case these are somehow indicative of what can be considered primitive... Equivalence - all electrons (say) appear to be identical. Counting - a BEC (for example) does a sort of simple arithmetic, in that the universe keeps track of the number of objects involved even when they aren't even in theory distinguishable. Symmetry - as I'm sure you know there all lots of examples of this in physics. All the conservation laws (energy, momentum, etc) can be expressed in terms of symmetries. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
