On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:39 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:56 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> 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. > Right, which is what Bruno's result, Markus Muller's paper shows is the case with arithmetical truth in its relation to physical systems. Assuming arithemtical truth, one can explain how to derive physics from it. > > > *So do you think mathematical properties require things to count? * >> > > Yes I think so. And I think things are required to think. > > Tell me why an electron is a thing and 3 is not. > *> 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. > And the "universe of numbers that describe the coordinates of mathematical objects called elections and photons" ? Are those also like the Hulk 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. > Between any two casually separated universes, there is no means of comparing time, mass, size, etc. The other universe will always appear as static and unchanging abstract and ineffectual object from the point of view of the universe you inhabit. That platonic computations seem static is only from your viewpoint. For those beings whose minds are described by those computations, they would see a changing dynamic world around them. > > >> >>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. > This statement just shows you haven't read the papers. > > *> 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. > https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11921131.pdf > > >> > *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. > See the link above. > > *> 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". > Of course, I am showing the inconsistency of the "Presentism" view, that what exists must constantly change in order for us to perceive change. > > > 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. > > Change as we experience it is with respect to the self's indexical position and relation to previous and later states in some causal progression. Thus our brains perceive change despite being a part of what is objectively a static object. The you from 5 minutes ago is still perceiving the point in time 5 minutes ago. 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.
