On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> If sentence X says "2+2=5" then sentence X expresses a numerical >> relationship, that association may or may not belong to the category "true" >> but it's certainly a relationship. The problem isn't that true mathematical >> relationships don't exist it's that false ones do too, > > > > > In physics and the everyday life too, but why should we take into account > false proposition into account? > But it's not false! It's true to say that "2+2" and "=5" are in a relationship, they are both in a sentence that says "2+2 =5". But if you want to determine if what that sentence says is true or not, then you will need to make a calculation, and that can only be done with matter that obeys the laws of physics. > >> >> and the only way anybody has ever been able to separate true statements >> from false statements is by using matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > > The whole point of realism is that the truth is independent of the fact > that we verify them. > But without access to matter that obeys the laws of physics truth alone can't DO anything. The relationship that a truth has with another truth, or even with a untruth, never changes, it's completely static. And consciousness is not static and neither is intelligence. > > > If not, you could say anything, both in physics and in arithmetic. > It would be trivially easy to write a program that would generate all correct textbooks in mathematics and physics of 1000 pages or less, but it would be *ASTRONOMICALLY* more difficult to generate **only** correct textbooks in mathematics and physics of 1000 pages or less; and it could not even be attempted without matter that obeys the laws of physics. >> >> And that is my explanation for why INTEL makes microprocessors out of >> silicon and not out of definitions and theorems; > > > > > INTEL use silicon because he wants that the object or people supported by > its computation can manifest itself relatively to our most probable > computations in arithmetic. > If mathematics is more fundamental than physics then you have no explanation why all numerical relationships can not manifest themselves directly to people without the need of silicon as a middleman. But if physics is more fundamental than mathematics then it's easy for me to explain why silicon is needed. > > Comp predicted > [...] > > I'm not interested in what "comp" predicted. John K Clark -- 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.
