On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 10/25/2015 8:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > 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? > > > From experience as a physical being. > Your experience provides evidence for the existence of the physical universe, but don't confuse this for evidence of the non-existence of anything outside the physical universe. 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.
