> On 21 Jun 2018, at 21:49, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > We can use physical analogies to reason about mathematics, > We can't reason about ANYTHING without physics, that's why our physical > brain is so handy. > >
Because we are material, but that makes not matter primitive. There is a “begging the question” here. > > > but doing so cannot prove that physical things are more fundamental than > mathematical things. > > Then why is brain damage a big deal? Why do I need my brain to think? You don’t. You need only an apparent stable brain to think in an apparent stable physical realities, > > > Accept for one second that a platonic computation could be conscious. > I'll be damned if I understand how a unique platonic computation could even > exist much less be conscious. I don't see any way to tell the difference > between the one correct platonic computation from the infinite number of > incorrect ones. Without physics 2+2=3 would work just as well as 2+2=4 and > insisting the answer is 4 would just be an arbitrary convention of no more > profundity than the rules that tell us when to say "who" and when to say > "whom". > > That makes no sense. Without a physical universe, 2+2=3 would still contradict RA or PA, or the arithmetical reality. > > > (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? > To answer that question I'd have to have at least some understanding about > how a platonic computer could work, and I have absolutely no idea. > Because when I give your reference where this explained, you answer that books cannot think, indeed of looking to the books to see why thinking, with Mechanism, involves only the additive and multiplicative assumptions, and nothing physical needs to be referred through. The physical is needed only for our human communication, but that does not make it primary, like physicalism demands. > As far as simulation is concerned in some circumstances we could figure out > that we live in a virtual reality, assuming the computer that is simulating > us does not have finite capacity we might devise experiments that stretch it > to its limits and we'd start to see glitches. Or the beings doing the > simulating could simply tell us, as they have complete control over > everything in our world so they would certainly be able to convince us > they’re telling the truth. > > > 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, > If I'm a intelligent being living in that Nintendo game I could figure out > that my enviroment was unbounded but finite and consisted of 57,344 cells > arranged in a 256 by 224 grid with each cell having a finite number of > states, and from that figure out the minimum size memory the simulating > computer would have to have. People have done something similar with our own > observable universe and figure that the computer simulating its running on > must have between 10^122 and 10^124 bits of memory. > > The only thing I know about how the hardware of this universe simulating > computer works is that it must have some way of telling the difference > between a correct computation and a incorrect computation and between a > corrupted memory and a uncorrupted memory. Actually that might not be a bad > definition of "physics". > > > You are willing to accept that relations between quarks and electrons can > implement and support your consciousness. > > Yes, > > > Quarks and electrons are fundamentally mathematical objects (they can't > be described in terms of anything simpler than their mathematical > properties). > > It was discovered more than 30 years ago that if Quarks didn't exist inside > protons then high speed electrons would scatter off protons differently than > the way they are observed to scatter. If you assume Quarks don't exist then > there are consequences, those high speed electrons will behave in ways that > surprise you. In other words physics told you that your assumption was > incorrect. > > >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? > > Because Platonic integers can be arranged in any way but quarks and > electrons can not be, when they can not we call that "wrong"; when the wings > of your airplane fall off that is physics telling you that one of your > calculations was wrong. Without physics Platonic integers are never wrong, > 2+2=3, 2+2=4, 2+2=5 its all fine, one relation is as good as another. Conventionalism in philosophy of math is debunked by all no go theorem in mathematics. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
