On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 10:53:18 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 10:01:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. >> > *I could give you plausible arguments for the results of QM and Relativity without insisting that you read any papers. Why can't you do the same for your favorite theory? AG*
> >> >>> *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.
