On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 04:30:54PM -0400, John Clark wrote: > 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.
If you define physics that way, then you are using the term differently to Bruno, for whom physics is very definitely phenomenology - tables, chairs, billiard balls, electrons and such. I made a somewhat similar point to Bruno, when I asked why his platonic arithmetic could be considered ur-stuff (which I defined to be pretty much how you define physics above). His retort was that integers weren't stuff - but I think that is somewhat of a lost in translation moment. The French word etouffe basically means material, and in English stuff used to mean the same, but in more recent times has taken on a placeholder function, a generic collection of "things". The real point is that with computationalism (in particular the CT thesis), it doesn't matter what the computers are made of (ie what the ur-stuff really is), phenomenal physics will be the same, a consequence of what is computible. One mystery does remain though - why don't we see things like Hilbert hotel computers? It is a somewhat hidden assumption of computationalism that such things don't exist. > > > > >> > >> 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. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
