On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 10:01:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 3:39 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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. >
*Why don't you come clean? You're a firm believer in the arithmetic theory of physical reality -- that the matter and spacetime are illusions created by the Platonic theory of numbers -- but you are absolutely unable to make a plausible argument that it predicts anything, like the BB. 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.
