On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:05 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:57 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM <[email protected]> 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 > >> >> > This is explained in Bruno's work: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.htm
Also in a recent paper by Markus Muller: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826.pdf The main conclusions are confirmed by experience, namely: > > - “What I observe seems to be fundamentally nondeterministic; it seems > that that there is irreducible randomness that governs my experience.” > > > - “But it seems that this randomness is itself subject to simple laws, > which I can write down in concise equations. I can feed these equations > into a computer and use them to predict future observations quite > successfully, even if only probabilistically.” > > It also predicts a "Big Bang": In particular, we will see that our theory predicts (under the assumption > just mentioned) that observers should indeed expect to see two facts which > are features of our physics as we know it: first, the fact that the > observer seems to be part of an external world that evolves in time (a > “universe”), and second, that this external world seems to have had an > absolute beginning in the past (the “Big Bang”). 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.
