On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:57:54 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Sep 2018, at 09:16, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:40:05 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 28 Sep 2018, at 18:37, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 4:04:41 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 11:32, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 1:02:36 AM UTC, [email protected] >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about >>>> Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis: >>>> f >>>> - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences >>>> - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the >>>> diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures. >>>> - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in >>>> diverse structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or >>>> mathematicism vide Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc. >>>> >>>> What are your thoughts. >>>> >>> >>> If it's what I think it is, it's demonstrably wrong. One counter example >>> suffices; there are plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, but if you >>> know what plane waves are, they clearly do NOT exist in physical reality. >>> >>> >>> >>> With mathematicalism, we don’t assume that there is a >>> (primitive/irreducible) physical reality. >>> >>> You are begging the question. >>> >> >> *In what way? The MUH says, for example, that for every mathematical >> solution or equation, there is a (perceived) physical universe mapped >> identically from, or into that solution or equation. I gave a simple >> counter example. AG* >> >> >> If that is the MUH, then that it is plainly ridiculous, indeed. To have a >> perceived universe, you need a measure on the computation/sigma-sentences. >> The physical emerges from an arithmetical phenomenon (assuming mechanism in >> cognitive science). >> >> The version of mathematicalism implied by mechanism does not lead any >> choice for the “physical reality”, it has to be a statistic on computations >> structured by the “observable” mode of self-reference. That indeed predicts >> quantum logic, and the many “histories” interpretation of arithmetic. >> Oracle are not impossible, but there are no evidence for them, and should >> be invoked in last resort (a bit like the “Alien” in cosmology). >> >> The empirical evidence is that there is no physical universe at all. >> >> Bruno >> > > *This double-talk nonsense IMO. I clearly gave a counter-example to the > MUH, * > > > > You want make some mathematical object physical real. That assume some > physical reality, which cannot be done. >
*This is the MUH, not what I want or believe. AG * *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis* Tegmark's MUH is: *Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure*.[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis#cite_note-Tegmark2008-3> That is, the physical universe is not merely *described by* mathematics, but *is* mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_structure>). *Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. *Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[4] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis#cite_note-4> > To say that a mathematical object exist physically, does not make sense. > It starts with a category error. > *I don't think you know what the MUH is. I have falsified it. AG* > > No mathematical object can be a physical object. But what remains possible > is that a physical object belongs to the dream of a person supported by > (infinity) of computation (which are arithmetical object a priori). > > > > > > *falsifying it. Moreover, I explained clearly why I used "perceived". I > just meant that plane waves can never be observed,* > > > > You don’t need to go that far. The numbers 0, 1, 2, … cannot be observed. > No mathematical object can be observed. They do not belong to the category > of what can be observed. > > Now, an observation might be explained by a sort of arithmetical > prestidigitation. Some numbers can make some numbers believing in a lot of > things. > > > > * and since they are solutions to Maxwell's equations, the MUH is false.* > > > > The MUH is only the idea that the physical might be a part of the > mathematical. Not that mathematical things have to exist physically. > > Tp put it simply, mathematicalism is the idea that there is no physical > universe at all. > > There is no time, no space, no energy, those are just Löbian machine's > elaborate fiction to figure out our indexical local geography. > > Look at a experimental physicist. He measured numbers, and infer relation > between numbers, and then avoid the qualia:consciousness question, which > indeed is only “physical” in string version of materialism, which requires > the brain and body to be infinite entities. > > To refute mathematicalism, you need a theory of matter giving an > observable role to some infinite entities, having secondary observable > consequence. Mechanism is a bit like that: if the physics deducible from > mechanism is different from what we observe, that might be used to infer > such infinite entities, but the preliminary results, and QM, does not go in > that direction. > > > > > * Deal with that directly and stop with the double talk about the > non-existence of the physical universe. That's not even an issue, since I > am only dealing with what can be observed. AG* > > > > If you take “observation” as a criteria of reality, you assume right at > the start the theology of Aristotle. > > I just say that this is incompatible with the idea that a brain is Turing > emulable. > > Study the sane04 paper, which explain all this, and ask question if > something is unclear. > > Bruno > > > > > > >> >> >>> Since the antic dream argument, we know that observation cannot be used >>> to prove that anything exist, but an observer. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> If this is correct, other models also fall by the wayside. AG >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 4:04:41 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 11:32, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 1:02:36 AM UTC, [email protected] >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about >>>> Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis: >>>> f >>>> - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences >>>> - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the >>>> diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures. >>>> - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in >>>> diverse structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or >>>> mathematicism vide Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc. >>>> >>>> What are your thoughts. >>>> >>> >>> If it's what I think it is, it's demonstrably wrong. One counter example >>> suffices; there are plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, but if you >>> know what plane waves are, they clearly do NOT exist in physical reality. >>> >>> >>> >>> With mathematicalism, we don’t assume that there is a >>> (primitive/irreducible) physical reality. >>> >>> You are begging the question. >>> >>> Since the antic dream argument, we know that observation cannot be used >>> to prove that anything exist, but an observer. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> If this is correct, other models also fall by the wayside. AG >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit 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.
