On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 12:44 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> If you believe Pi contains wikipedia, >> > > I have a hunch that Pi contains Wikipedia, > It almost surely <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely> does. > but I know that > > Champernowne's number does, but it also has the Incorrect Wikipedia that > is just as large as the regular Wikipedia but every single fact in it is > wrong. Champernowne's number doesn't say which one is right and which one > is wrong, to determine that you'd need computation and Champernowne's > number doesn't do computation, matter that obeys the laws of physics does. > Do you have any idea why matter "obeys laws"? > > > >> you should also believe there are Turing machines whose execution outputs >> Wikipedia to its tape. >> >> Neither Pi, nor this Turing's machine tape will spontaneously appear on >> your computer screen. >> > > I think that is probably true, if so then that is a *SEVERE* limitation > on what Turing machines are capable of doing. > Turing machines can create conscious experiences including appearances of physical realities, including those where there is a computer screen before you, but it isn't likely to create an experience of your computer screen spontaneously outputting Wikipedia out of nothing. You might as well write down the static you see on a TV and hope the white and black dots match the bits of wikipedia. > And on the Turing machine's tape there is also a section that contains > only incorrect and contradictory information, and you'd need matter that > obeys the laws of physics to compute the difference between the correct and > the incorrect. > >From your relative position matter is necessary in order to connect the configuration of knowledge in your brain with the knowledge inherent in the platonic computations you seek to emulate. > > >> > >> For that to happen, you need to rig up a bunch of atoms to behave in the >> same way as a Turing machine that computes Pi, or a Turing machine that >> outputs wikipedia. >> > > Yes, and it is easy to understand why that is if physics is more > fundamental than mathematics, but not if the reverse is true, then it would > be a great mystery. > Bruno's work "On the origin of the physical laws and sensations" provides a plausible explanation to this mystery. > > >> > >> Mathematical objects, like other physical universes, don't affect the >> evolution of physics in this universe, >> > > But if mathematics was > more fundamental than physics they most certainly should! > Physics is more fundamental than biology, but only a very limited bit of physics is of any relevance to biology: the physics of electrons and their interactions via photons. Quarks, gravity, the strong force, the weak force, etc. can for the most part be ignored, despite being more fundamental than biology. Similarly, most objects in math might be ignored from their effect on our physical laws, save that small fraction of mathematical objects that create conscious experiences. Those have to be taken into account in order to understand physics and physical laws. > > >> > >> at least not unless we choose to simulate those mathematical objects >> > > Simulated mathematical objects? So nobody knows how much 2+ 2 is, all we > know is that simulated 2 plus simulated 2 is simulated 4, but real 2 plus > real 2 is unknown. > We know real 2 plus real 2 is 4, because we simulated the interaction of mathematical objects known as the integers and discovered how operations like multiplication and addition work. This is the source of mathematical all knowledge. Mathematicians, using calculators, pen & paper, computers, or their minds, simulate the behavior of mathematical objects and it is through this simulation that they discover properties of mathematical objects that can only be accessed in this way. > That doesn't smell right to me. Does it to you? > Do you have a better explanation for where mathematical knowledge comes from? > > > >> I have a feeling you might learn a lot more if you weren't always so >> certain that you are right. >> > > I am often certain, and occasionally I'm correct too. > Problems arise when you are both incorrect and certain. 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 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/d/optout.
