On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:36 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>> No I'm not disputing that, but computational relations couldn't exist >>> without computations, and computations couldn't exist without matter that >>> obeys the laws of physics. >>> >> >> >* * >> *Why couldn't it be the other way around? e.g. that mathematical >> computations are what give us physics?* >> > > > If mathematics was more fundamental than physics then Intel would be a > ridiculously unnecessary company and would have gone bankrupt decades ago, > but physics can clearly do things that mathematics can't and so the company > is thriving > > That doesn't follow. It could be that: Number relations -> Platonic computations -> Conscious Computations -> Appearance of physical realities -> Appearance of physical entities (including abacuses, computers, and chip companies we use to explore the number relations) > > >> *In other words, why do you place physics on such firmer ground than >> mathematics? Are you certain physics is primary, and not mathematics? If >> so, I would like to know the reason for this certainty.* >> > > If neither matter nor physics existed but "1+1 =2" did then "1+1 =3" would > exist too, one of those statement is fiction and one id nonfiction but the > only difference between the 2 is the way physics treats matter, for example > 2 merged hydrogen atoms behave differently in a gravitational field than 3 > do. > Is "1", "2", and "3" have any meaning, then "1+1 ~= 3". If you think it can then you're using nonstandard defintions of "1", "3", "+", or "=". > The difference between truth and falsehood is that if you treat a > falsehood as being true the drug you're taking won't work or you car won't > start or your Turing Machine won't do what it is programmed to do, or in > other words something will end up biting you in the ass. But without > physics the consequences for being wrong would be exactly the same as the > consequences for being right, none at all. > You're delving into absurdities (asserting that 1=0) in order to avoid considering the possibility that arithmetical reality might be being more fundamental than the reality we see. You understand that we could be in a matrix type of simulation. Therefore you must also understand that we cannot use our experiences to reliability inform us of what the true/fundamental reality really is. If you accept the Church-Turing Thesis, then you know no program can ever determine what machine is executing it. If you accept multiple-realizability (which I think you do) you understand that computers can be made of anything, so long as it preserves the necessary relations. Am I wrong about any of these? 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
