On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 11:50:00 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:58:24 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >> > > *So you are unable to explain it succinctly. AG * >
*For example, Einstein, in offering a succinct explanation of SR, could say that Lorentz invariance implies anti-intuitive results concerning relative time rates when comparing them in inertial frames. I am seeking some motivational principle or statement to motivate me to read these papers. 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.
