On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> They show you how to generate terms in a sequence and if you add up >>> enough of them you'd get the the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi; >>> but it assumes that there is no barrier that makes doing that impossible >>> and states that assumption with 3 little dots (...). I don't know for >>> certain but those 3 little dots *might* be saying something that is logical >>> nonsense, I do know for certain that the first mathematicians who used >>> those 3 little dots knew nothing about quantum mechanics or the >>> computational limit of the universe, and that gives me pause. >> >> >> >>> > What I explained is that if you think there is a largest number *that* >> is what definitely leads to logical nonsense. >> >>> Say there is a largest number N, such that N+1 is [...] > > > If physics is more fundamental than mathematics (and it *might* be) and if > physicists are right about there being a limit on the number of > calculations that can be performed in the universe and if N is the largest > integer that can be counted in the universe then N +1 is as logically > ridiculous as N divided by zero. > Just because something is not physically istantiated or observed does not make it logically ridiculous. Are the unobserved parts of the Mandelbrot set logically ridiculous? What if they are observed in other branches of the wave function? What if there is another hubble volume in the eternal inflation which has slightly different laws/initial conditions which does allow that N+1 to be computed? What if the big bang/big crunch is cyclical, and N+1 was computed in a previous cycle prior to this one? What does an arrangement of atoms in a certain way that some observer construes as representing N+1 have to do with the existence of N? > > >> If mathematics is a language then it needs something to talk about, >> and like any language you can write fiction or nonfiction. If it's just a >> language then mathematics can talk about the physical world (non-fiction) >> but it can also be used to write fiction. So some or the more esoteric >> and abstract areas of mathematics, and perhaps even something as mundane as >> the Real Numbers, *might* be rather like a mathematical version of a Harry >> Potter novel. > > > > >> > No, fiction like Harry Potter doesn't kick back. If you can simply make >> up the largest Mersenne prime then do so, > > > Prove to me that physics is more fundamental than mathematics (right now I > don't know if it is or not) and then give me a computer with the > computational power of the entire universe and then I will be happy to tell > you exactly what the largest Mersenne prime is. > (To clarify, I meant to say "the next largest" rather than "the largest". Currently 48 are known, if you discover another one you can collect $100,000. (but maybe it's already been claimed.. https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/10/14-0 )) So you seem to accept mathematics is more than just a language. It is a field that concerns objects which we can study, which can surprise us, and can exert an influence in our universe and others when we discover and talk about the properties of those objects of study. > > >>>The number C is so large it can't be factored in the life of the >>> universe. Do you believe A and B have definite values despite our inability >>> to compute them? >> >> > > >>If mathematics is just a language and if factoring that composite >>> number would exceed the computational capacity of the entire universe and >>> if you really can destroy information (and nearly all physicists think that >>> you can not) then yes, A and B would no longer have definite values; I mean >>> if you destroy something then obviously it no longer exists. But if you can >>> destroy information then all sorts of other very weird things could happen >>> too. However I don't think you can destroy information. >> >> >> > I wasn't asking whether you thought they were destroyed but whether or >> not the factors of C still had definite values or not. >> > > I though I had already answered that. If physics is more fundamental than > mathematics (and I have no idea if that's true or not) and if the universe > has a computational limit as rigidly enforced as the speed of light limit > (and I think that is probably true) and if information can be destroyed > (and I think that is probably false) and if you destroy the factors of C > then obviously C no longer has any factors. > But they existed in a previous point in time. So does some computer's register have to hold the value of "3813819038120938901" in order for that number to exist? And then it stops existing as soon as the computer is turned off? Over how great a range (in time or space) can the computer whose register holds "3813819038120938901" influence the existence of 3813819038120938901? Your view is very difficult for me to wrap my head around. 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 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/d/optout.
