On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:01:59 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Dec 2018, at 21:33, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > 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]> 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! > > > > Then you, or Clark, should explain why Hulk is not taught in all primary > school on he planet, like elementary arithmetic is. May be we should ask > all physicists, economist and bankers as well, to use Hulk instead of the > numbers, when they share their results. > > Do you agree that x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 33 does admit or not a solution? Do > the term “open problem” makes sense? Ca you give me an open problem about > Hulk? > > Bruno > > I think there are "open questions" in the comic universes:
*There are many open questions surrounding Avengers: Infinity War. A film that brings together all facets of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has a lot to live up to. Even after the credits roll there are still many open questions that will keep fans theorizing until the still-unnamed Avengers 4 is released next year. Without further ado, let us take a look at a few unanswered questions that will haunt us until next year after witnessing the aftermath of Thanos’ journey to gather the Infinity Stones.* https://mcuexchange.com/q-unanswered-questions-infinity-war/ - 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.
