On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25/10/2015 6:12 pm, Pierz wrote: > >> It's hard to see how physics can be self-consistent without the a priori >> existence of arithmetic. >> > > Maybe it is because the self-consistency of physics is what makes > arithmetic possible. > > Though admittedly that is a different point to whether or not physics is >> "emulated" in arithmetic. >> > > True. But no-one has yet emulated any physics in arithmetic. All the we > have is mathematical accounts of discovered physical laws -- arithmetic > based in physics. I recently replied to someone on the FOAR list who expressed a similar criticism: Something has to "run" the math... ;) electricity or not. > Isn't this being a bit one-sided? Physics can run itself, but objects in math cannot. A physical universe can exist independently of anything else, but a mathematical object cannot. A physical computation can result in consciousness, a mathematical computation results in nothing. >From where does such bias originate? 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.
