On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 3:39 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 8:58:33 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 2:14 PM <[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. >>>> >>> >>> *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.* >>> >> >> That's not surprising, as you have said numerous times, you refuse to >> read the papers. >> >> >>> * 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 * >>> >> >> It's not "my Platonic arithmetic theory" --- This is the a very popular >> theory among mathematicians >> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeEAvukZItOCKGXXBf38pv0OlPOxT0i8N7qPky35TqoWgwNQQ/viewanalytics> >> and also the most commonly held ideas in philosophy of mathematics among >> professional mathematicians. >> > > *Let's not split hairs. It's the theory you defend and support, but are > unable to give any plausible arguments for its alleged predictions, such as > the BB. * >
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826.pdf "11 Cosmology and Boltzmann brains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41" > *I would read the papers you offer if I had a sense of the theory's > plausibility. * > You want a sense of a theory's plausibility before you will look into the it. But you can't get a sense of the plausibility until you look into it. It is a hopeless situation. > *But failing that, I am not motivated to waste my time on nonsense. AG* > >> >> I'm am beginning to feel this way too. 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.
