On 10/25/2015 8:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[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?
From experience as a physical being.
Brent
--
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.
