On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:12 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:56 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>Without matter and the laws of physics there could be no objective >>> statements or statements of any sort because there would be nobody around >>> to make them. >>> >> >> > *But we're talking about ultimate foundations of reality, * >> > > Without physics reality would not need a foundation because there would > be no reality, there would be nothing. And nothing could be explained not > only because there would nobody to explain it to but more importantly > because there would be nothing around that needs explaining. > You are assuming the answer at the start. None of the above is an argument that physics is fundamental, rather than derivative. > > >> *> you could always count the number of ways you could uniquely arrange >> those items, leading to a bigger number, ad infinitum. For example. You >> start with 3 objects. You could arrange them in 3! = 6 ways. If you then >> arranged those arrangements, you would have 6! ways of doing that, etc. * >> > > But suppose there were no 3 objects, suppose there were no objects at all > in existence as would be the case without matter and physics. How many ways > can you arrange nothing? As for "ad infinitum", it's easy to say arrange 3 > objects in a infinite number of ways but to actually DO it you'd need a > infinite amount of energy and space and time, and physics will not allow > that. > So do you think mathematical properties require things to count? How many things to count are necessary? > > >> > You are packing a lot of assumptions into your word "DO". >> > > For something to DO anything a change must be made in space and time, and > numbers never change in space and time, the language of mathematics will > always and everywhere insist that the English language word "cow" has 3 > letters. > > >> *> You mean the numbers cannot affect the movement of particles in this >> universe. * >> > > There is certainly a relationship between matter and numbers but does > matter describe numbers or do numbers describe matter? I think matter > describes numbers and I can give you lots of examples of that, the most > obvious is the physical brain of a mathematician. Bruno thinks numbers > describe matter but is unable to provide a single example of this. > Give me your reasons for why you think computations that exist in the universe of numbers are ineffectual and cannot produce consciousness, but computations that exist in the universe of numbers that describe the coordinates of mathematical objects called elections and photons can. > > >> > *You have not shown that the arithmetical programs cannot simulate >> conscious beings which would perceive themselves to exist within those >> simulations.* >> > > Forget consciousness, a computer program can't simulate anyone or do > anything else either unless it is run on a Turing Machine made of matter > that obeys the laws of physics. > You have provided no proof to back up this statement. > > >> >>> *Do we live in a Diophantine equation* >>>> >>> >> No. >>> >> >> *> What is your argument?* >> > > A Diophantine equation can not change in time or space therefore a Diophantine > equation can not DO anything and a mind needs to change its thoughts or > it won't be thinking. > > Spacetime does not change in time or space either. The universe is a static four dimensional block. The "deletion/erasure/forced non-existence" (whatever you call it) of previous moments in time is completely void of explanatory power. The argument is simple: If you think other (past or future) moments of time need to stop existing for you to experience change, then you can experience change without the past moment existing. But if you can experience change with only the present existing, then the existence of the present moment is entirely sufficient to explain your current experience. Which means that whether other moments in time exist or not, has no bearing on your present experience and belief in change. Therefore, past moments in time do not have to be deleted from existence, and by Occam (not to mention relativity), the better theory is that all points in time exist, and your belief in change is an unrelated illusion, and is not at all substantiated by your belief in change. Jason 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.
