On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:11:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 8:06 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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. >
*As I previously wrote, I could offer some information about the predictions of modern physics; not only what they are, and how they're tested, but how they came about. I wouldn't have refer to some paper. I haven't seen any plausibility arguments concerning predictions of arithmetic being the cause of the alleged illusion of matter and spacetime. Not one such argument as far as I can recall. None of the advocates of this theory are able to offer any motivational predictions and their plausibility BASED on your Platonic arithmetic theory; not one! 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.
