On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 1:39:12 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:56 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> 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. * >> > > I am assuming that if you ask me to explain nothing I could do so because > I am very good at nothing. > > *> None of the above is an argument that physics is fundamental, rather >> than derivative.* >> > > Nobody will ever prove that something is absolutely fundamental, but you > can show that some things are more fundamental than others. > > > *So do you think mathematical properties require things to count? * >> > > Yes I think so. And I think things are required to think. > > *> How many things to count are necessary?* >> > > More than none. > > *> Give me your reasons for why you think computations that exist in the >> universe of numbers * >> > > Computations "exist" in the universe of numbers in the same way that the > Incredible Hulk "exists" in the universe of Marvel comics. > > >> > *are ineffectual and cannot produce consciousness* >> > > One of the few things we know for certain about consciousness is it > involves change, but numbers never change in space or time; matter/energy > is the only known thing that can change. > > >> >>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.* >> > > I don't have proof but I have lots of examples of matter doing arithmetic > but nobody has an example of arithmetic doing matter. Matter/energy may or > may not be fundamental, but it's certainly more fundamental than > arithmetic. > > *> Spacetime does not change in time or space either.* >> > > Of course it does, if the universe contains anything in it then the block > universe can't be exactly the same all the time everywhere! If we ignore > Quantum Mechanics as Minkowski and Einstein did when they came up with the > block universe idea then time and space are the 2 fundamental coordinates > of existence, and as we move along the time axis we see a change in the 3D > shape of the Block Universe and if we see a different 3D shape we know it > must be a different time. > > >> > *The universe is a static four dimensional block. * >> > > That could only be true if the universe contained no details. That could > only be true if the universe was infinite unbounded and homogeneous in both > space and time, and that is the best definition of "nothing" that I know of. > > *> If you think other (past or future) moments of time need to stop >> existing for you to experience change,* >> > > I think it is a reasonable assumption but please note you are already > assuming the existence of time, otherwise the past and future you speak of > would have no meaning and it's not even clear what you mean by "stop". > > > then you can experience change without the past moment existing. >> > > If it's not a change in experience with respect to time what is it with > respect to? The only alternative is a change in experience with respect to > space, but such a move would take time. > > John K Clark >
Computations "exist" in the universe of numbers in the same way that the Incredible Hulk "exists" in the universe of Marvel comics. Great quotable! - pt -- 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.
