On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 10, 2018, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think truth is primitive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy), *truth* and *matter* >>>>>> are linked: >>>>>> >>>>>> "As a matter of fact, ..." >>>>>> "The truth of the matter is ..." >>>>>> "It matters that ..." >>>>>> ... >>>>>> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree they are linked. Though matter may be a few steps removed >>>>> from truth. Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is >>>>> thusly: >>>>> >>>>> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation happens >>>>> to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain values assigned >>>>> to its variables) maps its variables to states of the time evolution of >>>>> the >>>>> wave function of our universe. You might say that we (literally not >>>>> figuratively) live within such an equation. That its truth reifies what >>>>> we >>>>> call matter. >>>>> >>>>> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this. e.g. >>>>> because the following statement is *true* "two has a successor" then >>>>> there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any previous number. >>>>> Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the existence of a >>>>> factor of 9 besides 1 and 9. >>>>> >>>>> Jason >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its >>>>>> concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from >>>>>> sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, >>>>>> its >>>>>> truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, pure >>>>>> mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, >>>>>> causality) >>>>>> of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has transcendental >>>>>> truth." >>>>>> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning the >>>>> integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all that we see >>>>> around us. >>>>> >>>>> Jason >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth and >>>> *linguistic* (from language) truth. >>>> >>>> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ ] >>>> >>>> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory (RTT) , >>>> functional type theory (FTT) languages. >>>> >>>> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic objects of >>>> Peano arithmetic (PA). >>>> >>>> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry Field, >>>> refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]). >>>> >>>> >>> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than >>> assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth. >>> >> >> Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs additional >> postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is derivable from >> arithmetic. AG >> >>> >>> > The above statement is false. > > With arithmetic alone (even peano arithmetic) you get the emulations of > all possible programs. Under the current leading theory of consciousness > by those who study the problem, that computation yields every possible > conscious state, including that of your own, in this moment right now, > believing yourself to be in a universe ruled by quantum mechanics. > > The appearance of a multiverse is itself a direct consequence of every > possibility being realized by every program execution. >
*So every possible program executes or has executed, giving rise to (the illusion of) matter? But how does a program execute in the absence of matter, which seems to be what you're demanding? AG* > > 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.
