On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16/10/2015 8:56 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> >> What evidence do you need to say that something does not exist? Absence >> of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence. >> > > Why is that so in this case, when the standard form of that phrase is > "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? > > > Because if there is no evidence for something where one would, if that > thing existed, expect evidence, then one is justified in saying that the > thing does not exist. > So what evidence would you expect to see if platonic computations existed? > If there were an elephant in my room at this moment, I would expect to see > it when I turned round. The fact that I do not see an elephant when I turn > round is good evidence that there is no elephant in my room. Absence of > evidence is evidence of absence. > Bruno has shown that one thing we would expect to see is a quantum reality. And what do we see? > > > Also, despite your claims to there being no evidence, there is in fact > evidence of platonic computations. They exist independently of you, mean, > and this physical universe, as surely as "7 is prime" is true independently > of you, me and the physical universe. > > > The statement "7 is prime" is true by virtue of the axioms of arithmetic > and the definition of a prime number. That does not imply that "7" exists > in any sense whatsoever. > It does if you accept the truth of the axioms. Do you deny the axioms are true? > You confuse "true" being used of a proposition, with "exists". That is a > profound and serious confusion. > The truth of "7 is prime" implies no integer factors of 7 exist besides 1 and 7. The truth of "8 is composite" implies the existence of integer factors of 8 besides 1 and 8. I do not confuse truth with existence. It is the truth of a proof of existence that implies existence. > > > In mathematics you have descriptions of Turing machines and descriptions >>> of computations, but no live machines or computations. >>> >> >> There are both. >> >> >> What evidence do you have for this assertion? >> > > The existence of a UD implies a quantum reality, and we observe a quantum > reality. > Accepting the truth of arithmetical systems like the axioms of > Peano/Robinson arithmetic, implies their existence. > > > But I do not accept the 'truth' of these mathematical structures. > How can you do physics if you cannot count or add one number to another? > And, even if taken as a set of axioms upon which one can reason, they do > not imply that anything like a UD actually exists in any useful sense. The > UD is an idea in platonia, and it is totally without function until it > receives a physical implementation. > So then the Bruce Kellet that exist within a platonic calculation of a simulation of the milky way galaxy on the Planck scale is a zombie? Too bad for him, that his galaxy is only "abstract", rather than "concrete". > > > > Substrate independence simply means that you can replace all or part of >> the human brain with computer-based equivalents. In other words, strong AI. >> No need for platonia in order to say that consciousness is independent of >> the substrate. >> > > But if it is independent of substrate, and if computations exist > platonically, then those platonic computations are equally capable of > instantiating consciousness. > > > You are confusing the meaning of 'substrate'. In the context, I meant an > explicitly physical substrate. Platonia is an idea, > > If Platonia is an idea, then so is "The primary physical reality". It is > up to science now, to determine which of these two ideas is more likely to > be true. > > > Sure. And science has proved many times over that physical reality exists > and can be operated on, while platonia is an idea that has no useful > consequences whatsoever. > Science has never proven that the physical reality is not merely an appearance to conscious entities that exist as a consequence of platonically existing computations. > > > > > it is no more 'physically real' than is the idea of a unicorn, or of >> Hogwarts School. >> > > Of course it isn't physically real. But why assume physical existence is > the only kind of existence? That seems to be an idea based purely faith. > > Can I take your lack of reply to mean you agree that it is only by pure faith that you believe physical existence is the only kind of existence? > > >> Neither unicorns nor Hogwarts can instantiate consciousness. No more can >> the idea of platonia. >> > > The idea of platonia doesn't instantiate consciousness, but objects within > platonia do. > > > Prove it by showing me this magical platonic conscious being. > Look in the nearest mirror. > > >> If you want to demonstrate that the idea of platonia can sustain >> consciousness of itself, then all you have to do is produce a conscious >> being that does not have an accompanying physical substrate. Until you do >> that, I think you should shut up about platonia. >> > > Would you demand of Everett to produce a conscious being from another > branch of the wave function, or else shut up about the other branches of > the wave function? > > > Yes, of course. The other branches of the wave function are not real in > any useful sense. They are an idea, just as is platonia. And ideas can have > effects in the real world only through the intermediary action of conscious > physical beings, never by magic. > They are consequences of testable theories, mainly QM. You believe in the existence of galaxies so far away we may never see them, don't you? > > > If not, then why demand that I shut up about the consequences of > well-accepted theories? > > > Well-accepted? > > Laws of arithmetic. Computationalism. > > Why? Arithmetic is system of propositions. Whether it is real or not has >> no effect on Church-Turing. >> > > Then you should be equally happy to have your brain implemented by "unreal > computations" as "real computations" :-) > > > Computations in platonia are 'unreal' -- they do not exist, so cannot > implement anything. > > > You said earlier that you have no evidence that objects of platonia do not > exist. So why insist so adamantly that they do not? > > > You should learn to read. I said no such thing. I said that the absence of > evidence for platonia was evidence that it did not exist. > Strange how evidence works. No evidence = evidence? > > > Are you familiar with Max Tegmark's idea that physical existence is > mathematical existence? > > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis > - http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf > - > > http://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809 > > > I am familiar with Tegmark's ideas. I do not agree with most of them. > Arguments from authority do not carry weight here. Tegmark is an outsider > in the physics community. > I was not making an argument from authority, only pointing you to some material that might cast doubt on your belief that physical existence is somehow different from mathematical existence. Also, "Tegmark is an outsider in the physics community" is an argument from authority (the authority of the physicists that have ostracized him). Since you are familiar with his ideas, I ask you, how is physical existence different from mathematical existence? 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.
