On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:58:24 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:05 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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 >
*So you are unable to explain it succinctly. AG * > > 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.
