On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:01:26 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:50 PM <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:58:24 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:05 PM <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:57 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018, <agrays...@gmail.com> 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 <cloud...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> 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 <cloud...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
