On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 4:51:57 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:42 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:01:26 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:50 PM <[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 * >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> 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* >> >>> >>> >> > That explains a lot, doesn't it? >
*In fact it does, albeit imperfectly. I can make many meaningful, informative statements about those theories, but I don't see anything resembling that in the theory that everything is derivable from arithmetic. Concerning the claim that matter is primary and not derivable from anything else, I don't think that's the prevailing pov among physicists. They're really not Aristotelian if that means believing there's nothing underlying matter as its cause. I don't see any pervasive denial of the possibility that matter being observed and measured, stands by itself without any deeper cause. I therefore reject Bruno's position of some Aristotelian bias among physicists. AG* <https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://image.slidesharecdn.com/03bvirtuearistotle-150310103616-conversion-gate01/95/aristotelian-virtue-ethics-27-638.jpg?cb%3D1426018992&imgrefurl=https://www.slideshare.net/johanautio/aristotelian-virtue-ethics&h=479&w=638&tbnid=-sIPVBeXVy60LM:&q=aristotelian+ethics&tbnh=120&tbnw=159&usg=AI4_-kQd68AmZbkde2uGE60k0evfjjgMDQ&vet=1&docid=QK1A1SH7zxvvmM&itg=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2tu_AlZffAhXAIjQIHZmBDH0Q_B0wH3oECAIQEA> > > Jason > > > >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- 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.
