> On 26 Aug 2019, at 12:35, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:22:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 25 Aug 2019, at 20:10, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 12:38:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> A mathematical structure is a relation between propositions defined by some >> rules of deduction. It is static. It has no "accidental" or as Bruno would >> say "geographic" features. Two mathematical structures can be isomorphic >> precisely because of this. It is impossible that a mathematical and a >> physical structure be isomorophic. That is just a loose way of talking that >> assumes we will abstract away enough of the physical structure so that the >> remainder can be represented mathematically and then that can be isomorphic >> to some other mathematical structure. >> >> Brent >> >>> >> >> >> >> Once one eliminates Platonism and accepts that mathematics is programming >> <https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/08/22/arche-programming/> > > If you accept the idea that a machine stops, or does not stop, then 99,9999…% > of the mathematical reality, and some percentage of the physical reality, is > not programmable. > > > Every physicist seems to think that their own theory of physics (which they > have written in TeX/Math) can be written as a program.
Yes, but one we assume Mechanism, we know that this can no more be true. But the non predictability might be only the one due to the first person indeterminacy. Mechanism predicts that if the physical reality is computable, it is only computable with respect to a random oracle. That looks to be the case with QM. > > Beyond those kind of programs, there are matter compilers after all. Matter is Turing universal, but assuming mechanism, matter is more than just Turing universal. Like consciousness it has non computable elements, and they are given by the presence of the “& p” in the intensional variants of Provability. It is a bit subtle. We can build conscious program, but we cannot simulate consciousness? Somehow, a program borrow its consciousness from its semantics, which it cannot even define. That explains why consciousness (and consistency) seems mysterious: it has to be like that. Both matter and consciousness would not exist without the gap between G (proof) and G* (truth). Bruno > > @philipthrift > > > > > >> then all of physics (what humans have thought of to model the cosmos) can be >> found in the numerical relativity and quantum simulation programs running on >> computers. > > If I am computable, reality cannot be computable. > > > >> >> So a program and a "physical structure" are only isomorphic if the universe >> itself is a simulation. > > With mechanism, despite a general misunderstanding, the physical reality is > not a simulation, nor is the mathematical reality (even limited to the > arithmetical reality). This is already empirically confirmed somehow, by QM, > I would say. > > Bruno > > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/12bd775b-3195-4621-a39c-15fce7ebfb0b%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/12bd775b-3195-4621-a39c-15fce7ebfb0b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8E4D0792-3ACA-4C37-AFD6-E7355E86565E%40ulb.ac.be.
