On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
>* * > *The only thing I am asking is:* > *1) Physics -> Brains, Cars, Atoms, Etc.* > *2) ??? -> Physics -> Brains, Cars, Atoms, Etc.* > *Do we have enough information to decide between the above two theories? > Have we really ruled out anything sitting below physics?* > If I define physics as the thing that can tell the difference between a correct computation and a incorrect computation and between a corrupted memory and a uncorrupted memory, and as long as we're at this philosophic meta level that's not a b ad definition, then I don't think anything is below physics. > >> >> Then why is brain damage a big deal? Why do I need my brain to think? >> > > >* * > *The base computations that implement your brain may be sub-routines of a > larger computation,* > If true then that is an example of something physics can do but mathematics can not. And I have to say that is a mighty damn important sub-routine! > >> >> 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". >> >> > > *For any computation to make sense, you need to be working under some > definitions of integers and relations between them. * > Definitions are made for our convenience, they do not create physical objects. And there are an infinite number of ways integers and the relations between them could have been defined, so why did mathematicians pick the specific definition that they did? Because that's the only one that conforms with the physical world, and thats why mathematics is the best language to describe physics. > * > Without that, you can't even define what a Turing machine or what a > computation is.* > I don't need to describe either one because I've got something much much better than definitions, examples. *>I can imagine a computation without a physical universe. * > I can't. >* * > *I can't imagine a computation without some form of arithmetical law.* > I can. A Turing Machine will just keep on doing what its doing regardless of the English words or mathematical equations you use to describe its operation. > >> >> 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. >> >> > > > T > *hey could convince us something strange is going on, but they couldn't > convince us they weren't lying about whatever they might be telling us > about the architecture that is running the simulation. This follows > directly from the Church-Turing thesis. The Church-Turing thesis says any > program or Turing Machine can be executed/emulated by any computer. > Therefore, no program or machine can determine whether it is being computed > by or emulated by any particular Turing machine vs. any other that might be > emulating it.* > OK, they could prove they're simulating us but they couldn't prove the logical hardware architecture of their machine worked the way they said it did, however in some circumstances they could provide some pretty compelling evidence that they were telling the truth. For example suppose they found out how to solve all non-deterministic polynomial time problems in polynomial time and that's how they were able to make a computer powerful enough to simulate our universe. And they said they themselves were being simulated and their simulators told them how to do this and now they are passing the secret on to us. We try it and pretty soon we have made our own simulated universe with intelligent, and presumably conscious, beings in it. After that I’d tend to believe what they said. >> >> 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. >> > > *>Okay. So you do accept relations between mathematical objects can > support your consciousness?* > A mathematical object is just something that has been defined in the language of mathematics, J K Rowling defined Hogwarts Castle in the language of English but that doesn't mean either of them must exist. There are an infinite number of ways mathematicians could have defined a quark but they picked the one that physics told them to, the one that scattered electrons the way we see in experiments. > > > *Integers (let's go by normal definitions of 0, 1, 2, etc.) have > properties.* > People invented numbers thousands of years ago to count things, if the laws of physics were different and physical objects spontaneously duplicated themselves and spontaneously disappeared our "normal definition" of integers would be very different from what we have now. > > > > *We can't arbitrarily say "2+2=5", this is playing with strings, not > integers.* > We can't be arbitrary if we don't want a conflict between mathematics and physics, but if you take out physics then play away, you can let 2+2 be anything you want and there are no consequences. > > * Would you say that mathematics imposes "meta laws" which must be true > across all possible/imaginable universes?* > Yes I think so, but the meta laws would be physical not mathematical. If we're very lucky we might be able to describe those meta laws mathematically (although almost certainly not with the mathematics we have now) but I don't think there is any chance of a pure mathematician ever finding them, we're going to need physical experiments to give us some hints and I just hope that doesn't require a particle accelerator the size of the galaxy. > >** > * It is physically impossible to arrange 7 stones into a rectangle* > If there were not 7 stones or 7 of anything in the entire physical universe the entire concept of "7" would be meaningless. > > > * It is physically impossible to move your pencil over a piece of paper > such that it writes a valid proof that 7 has more than 2 integer factors > > 0* > Yes, it is a physical law that the physical act described above would be physically impossible because there are at least 7 physical things in the physical universe so “7” means something. > >* * > *It is an impossible experience to see 7 stones arranged into a rectangle > (as defined above)* > I'm less sure about that, I've never taken it but with enough LSD I might be able to experience it. 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.
