On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:41:08 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:28 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:04:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 9:28:32 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/15/2018 7:43 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 1:09 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/14/2018 7:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:43 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, you create a whole theology around not all truths are >>>>>>> provable. But you ignore that what is false is also provable. >>>>>>> Provable is >>>>>>> only relative to axioms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Do you agree a Turing machine will either halt or not? >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Do you agree that no finite set of axioms has the power to prove >>>>>> whether or not any given Turing machine will halt or not? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. What does this tell us about the relationship between truth, >>>>>> proofs, and axioms? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think it tells us. Does it tell us that a false axiom >>>>>> will not allow proof of a false proposition? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It tells us mathematical truth is objective and doesn't come from >>>>> axioms. Axioms are like physical theories, we can test them and refute >>>>> them >>>>> if they lead to predictions that are demonstrably false. E.g., if they >>>>> predict a Turing machine will not halt, but it does, then we can reject >>>>> that axiom as an incorrect theory of mathematical truth. Similarly, we >>>>> might find axioms that allow us to prove more things than some weaker set >>>>> of axioms, thereby building a better theory, but we have no mechanical >>>>> way >>>>> of doing this. In that way it is like doing science, and requires trial >>>>> and >>>>> error, comparing our theories with our observations, etc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fine, except you've had to quailfy it as "mathematical truth", meaning >>>>> that it is relative to the axioms defining the Turning machine. Remember >>>>> a >>>>> Turing machine isn't a real device. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This seems to be the core problem with Bruno's proposal or model of >>>> reality; how does an imaginary device produce the illusion of matter (and >>>> space and time)? AG >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> -- >>> >>> >>> The solution us easy. Don't assume they're only imaginary. >>> >> >> *If they're responsible for the existence of the matter and spacetime >> illusion, then they aren't composed of matter and don't exist in spacetime. >> So, the only alternative is that they exist in our imagination; hence, >> they're imaginary. QED. AG * >> >>> >>> > Imaginary mean exists only in imagination. > > Simple counter example to your proof: If this universe is a simulation run > on a computer by an advanced alien species, you would conclude that > computer and alien species is imaginary on the basis that it can't be > located in spacetime. But clearly this computer and alien civilization > does not exist only in our heads, for if they didn't we wouldn't have heads > with which to imagine them. >
*If you insist on asserting something, anything, exists, but not in spacetime, you have a huge burden of proof since it's impossible to prove your assertion by any empirical test. So, you're not dealing with a scientific hypothesis, since it can't be falsified. AG * > > 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.
