On Sunday, December 16, 2018, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 7:41:08 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:28 PM <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:04:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018, <agrays...@gmail.com> 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 <meek...@verizon.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/14/2018 7:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:43 PM Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net> >>>>>>> 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. >> >> Jason >> > > > > > > The simulation hypothesis as you have stated it is an argument for > materialism. > > A simulation on one of our (conventional) computers is a bunch of > particles moving through CPU and GPU processors and LED pixels. One running > on some future quantum computer would be using qubit chips. > > What is the computer the advanced alien civilization is running "us" on? > It could be in fact "our" universe as quantum computer [ > https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4455 ]! Then we would be a bunch of particles > running on the advanced alien civilization 's quantum computer, just as > simulations above ore particles running on one of our quantum computers. > > - pt > > > > You are right, the simulation hypothesis, as generally stated, doesn't escape materialism. My example was only to show there can be non-imaginary things that can't be located in spacetime. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
