On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:10 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> *Tell me why an electron is a thing and 3 is not.* > An electron can change in time and space, 3 can not change in either. > >>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" ? * > I don't understand the question. > > 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. * > If it's separated there is no means of proving it even exists. But it's even worse than that, logically the number 3 can not change, if it did it would not be a 3. It reminds me of an old joke: 3+3=7, for extremely large values of 3. > > That platonic computations seem static is only from your viewpoint. > But I thought our subjective viewpoint was what you were trying to figure out and our viewpoint is certainly not static. > *> For those beings whose minds are described by those computations, they > would see a changing dynamic world around them.* > What would they see change? It can't be numbers, in arithmetic numbers are replaced not changed, even after writing 3+3=6 the number 3 is still around and doing just fine. If you know of something besides matter/energy that can change I'd love to hear about it. >>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. > I read them until it got too silly to read more, and that didn't take long. *>I am showing the inconsistency of the "Presentism" view, that what exists > must constantly change in order for us to perceive change.* > The past must leave some sort of record of itself for the present to know it existed, and to make a record something must change and numbers don't change, as far as we know only matter and energy have the ability to change in space and time. > >>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.* > Without matter/energy and thus without change how are these indexical marker positions of yours recorded? If I'm in the integer 8 in the Fibonacci sequence there is no way I could know that I was in the Fibonacci sequence or in a sequence of any sort unless I remembered that my previous state was a 5 and the one before that was a 3, but to form a memory something has to change and 3, 5 and 8 never change. > >* 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.* > That requires a memory and that means something must have changed 5 minutes ago that has persisted to now. And there is no way for pure numbers to do that, but matter/energy can. John K Clark > > 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.
