On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > physics as such use mathematics to explain, >
Yes, mathematicians are always saying mathematics is a language and mathematics is the language that best describes physics. But as members of this list often say the map is not the territory and the word "car" is not a car, it is a word. > > > For it to be primary, physics should not rely on inference rules. > You say mathematics is primary, but mathematics relies on inference rules . > > > You can't use an higher level to explain the lower feature, > Explanations require two things, somebody with enough intelligence to explain something and somebody with enough intelligence to understand something; and intelligence always requires matter that obeys the laws of physics. Explanations are a function of intelligence, the explanation for why a thing exist may or may not be correct but as far as the thing itself is concerned it doesn't matter, the thing will continue to exist regardless. > > JC's argument that he has never seen a computation run without a > computational substrate is silly when assuming comp, And that is why JC does not assume this muddled thing that Bruno calls "comp", and like most of Bruno's homemade terms isn't ever sure what it means. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
