On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 5:33:44 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:11:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 8:06 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:41:08 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:28 PM <[email protected]> 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 * >>> >>>> >>>> >> It can be falsified. I think you missed the posts I wrote in response to >> John. The basic idea is this: >> >> Theories predict certain observations. We can check for those >> observations. If we find them, the theory has passed a test. If we don't >> find them we keep looking. If we find observations that contradict the >> predictions of the theory, then we reject that theory and look for >> something better. >> > > *Your Turing Machines don't exist in spacetime, so in principle they're > undetectable by beings existing in spacetime. They might as well be ghosts. > And regardless of what you claim, I don't see anything predictable by such > a theory. AG * >
*For Turing, his machine, albeit a model, was conceived as existing in the physical world of spacetime (tapes, heads reading tapes, symbols being manipulated, outputs being printed, etc.), but YOUR Turing machine exists in a Platonic realm. So, I don't think any of this makes any sense. 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.
