On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> 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 *-> > [...] > No that could not be because it doesn't conform with what we observe. When the matter in our brains changes our consciousness changes and when our consciousness changes the matter in our brain changes; that wouldn't be the case if consciousness were created by some sort of mystical Platonic heebie jeebie that did not involve matter or the laws of physics. >> >> 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*". > I agree, but if not even one physical thing existed then the consequences of 1+1 ~= 3 would be exactly the same as 1+1=3 and that would be none at all because the concepts "1","2","3", "equal", and even "not" would have no meaning. In the final analysis you always need physics to tell you the difference between fiction and nonfiction; if your bridge falls down then some idea you employed in building that bridge was a fiction. If physics did not exist then falsehood would work just as well as truth because neither would have any consequences. > > > *You understand that we could be in a matrix type of simulation.* > Yes, but some *thing* must be performing all those calculations needed for the simulation, and that couldn't be done if there were no things. > >* * > *If you accept the Church-Turing Thesis, then you know no program can ever > determine what machine is executing it. * > I'm not exactly sure what "it" in the above refers to, but I accept that, ignoring the speed difference, if a Turing Machine can do something then the human brain can do it and if the Human brain can do it then a properly programed Turing Machine can do 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. * > Yes, but preserving the necessary relations means rejecting an infinite number of incorrect relations. There are an infinite number of relations between the numbers 1, 2, and 3 but only one of them is consistent with the addition operation and only physics can tell you which one that is. If "one" hydrogen atom combines with "two" hydrogen atoms and if it is falling in a gravitational field it will have "three" times the momentum and energy that "one" hydrogen atom would have; if you build a wall and figure it will stop the atoms because you think 1+2=2 and the wall is strong enough to withstand twice the energy of one hydrogen atom then there will be consequences for your erroneous belief that you didn’t expect. But without physique there are no consequences. 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.
