On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:11 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > This is not to say the physical laws are discarded and we are dealing with a pure idealism where anything goes. Quite the opposite. We would look at the statistics of all computer programs that replicate your conscious experience (we would find most of them correspond to a system that has Hydrogen atoms, and relativity, and billions of years of evolutionary history, etc.) and due to those statistics, we can recover stable laws. > > >> >>> 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. > We can use physical analogies to reason about mathematics, but doing so cannot prove that physical things are more fundamental than mathematical things. > > >> > >> *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. > I agree. But what can we logically conclude about the limits of this thing? Accept for one second that a platonic computation could be conscious. (we can debate this later) Accepting this premise, do you agree that the conscious computation cannot determine whether it is running on a platonic computer vs. a physical computer? If you accept this, we can then move on to debating whether or not a platonic computation can be conscious. > > >> >* * >> *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. > What I meant by "it" here was the program in question. If I run software, any software, it can never perform any computation that can reveal to it anything about what is ultimately executing it. I might run a Nintendo game, which believes itself to be running on a Nintendo machine, but it might actually be running in a Nintendo emulator running on a 64-bit Linux architecture, and this Linux machine might be running as a virtual machine on a 32-bit Mac. There is no algorithm the nintendo game can implement to tell it that it's not really running on a Nintendo machine. If there were then all game manufacturers would use this as a form of DRM and prevent emulation entirely. >From this, we can say, that if our brains and consciousness are Turing emulable, then we cannot know the true architecture or form of the machine that implements our computations. We could be physical, virtual (e.g. in a matrix), or mathematical (at least if you can accept computations can exist purely in math). > > >> *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. > > > You are willing to accept that relations between quarks and electrons can implement and support your consciousness. Quarks and electrons are fundamentally mathematical objects (they can't be described in terms of anything simpler than their mathematical properties). Integers are also mathematical objects (they can't be described in terms of anything simpler than their mathematical properties). Why do you think that the only mathematical objects that can sustain computation are quarks and electrons? 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.
