On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:01:26 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:50 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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 * >> >>> >>> > Succinctly your experience is included in the set of all the experiences > generated by all computations. > > If you want to know why this should leads to stable experiences within a > larger environment that ruled by simple laws with a simpler time in the > past, you will need to do some reading. Not every question can be expected > to have a succinct answer. > > Jason >
*Concerning QM, GR, and SR, one can give succinct summaries that are informative even if incomplete, but you can't do it about your theory on the origin of matter. So I can't take it seriously. 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.
