On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:57 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018, <[email protected]> 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* >> >>> >>> > Do you agree that "7 is prime" is true, even without a computer executing > it or proving it? > > If so, then do you agree that for positive integers k and x, that "(k*k - > k*x - x*x)^2 - 1 = 0" is true only when x is a Fibonacci number, and k is > the preceding Fibonacci number or 0? > > Do you further agree that the above statement remains true, regardless of > whether or not a physical computer enumerates every possible k and x value > and checking the equation? > > Then you have a case where mathematical truth, the truth of that equation, > enumerates all the Fibonacci numbers (an example of computation). > > The MRDP theorem > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diophantine_set#Matiyasevich's_theorem>, > proved in 1970, established that there are integer equations that enumerate > everything that is computable. This means there are equations that when > true, enumerate every program and its output, that enumerate the > intermediate states of each programs, equations that list all the moves > Deep Blue would make in chess, and equations that enumerate successive > states of a universe ruled by QM. > > The existence of these computations in mathematics is undeniable in the > same sense that "7 is prime" is undeniable. You can't accept one without > accepting the other. So if the primality of 7 does not depend on a physical > computer checking it, then neither does the existence of all computations > depend on a physical computer executing them. > > Jason >
Supposing every thing you write above is true, how does this produce the illusion of matter? TIA, AG > > -- 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.
