On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 5:51 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
* >> physics is the language of mathematics, it's very good at describing >> things. An equation can describe how system X, that is made of mass/energy, >> can in an interval of time change into something different, system Y. But >> a language by itself can't do anything because neither mathematics nor the >> English language can change with time unless there is a brain made of atoms >> to think about them. * > > > *> Language is representation. * > * Yes, as I said mathematics is "very good at describing things".* *> **Its "energy" can't do work either. Its "distance" isn't far away > whatever you think about it. * *Work is force over a "distance", but for the very concept of "distance" to be meaningful it must have four properties: * *1) The distance between X and Y must be greater than or equal to zero for all X and Y.* *2) The distance between X and Y equals zero if and only if X=Y.* *3) The distance between X and Y must be the same as the distance between Y and X.* *4) The distance between X and Z must be less than or equal to the distance between X and Y plus the distance between Y and Z, for all X, Y, and Z.* *The real numbers and the complex numbers all have the above four properties so they could be used to measure "distance" BUT it turns out there is another fundamentally different type of number that also has those four properties called P-adic numbers. For any prime number p, is a p-adic number system and in those systems the size of a number does not depend on how far it is from zero but by how the visible that number is by powers of P. It can lead to some unintuitive results, in the 5-adic system, 25 is smaller than 5.* *But if both the Real Numbers and the P-adic numbers are equally consistent why don't we start teaching first graders about P-adic numbers? Because the real numbers are extremely useful in physics, a.k.a. the physical world, but the P-adic numbers are almost useless in physics, although they are helpful in pure mathematics, Andrew Wiles used them to prove Fermat's Last Theorem,* *> mathematics doesn't change just because you think about it.* *Yes but that's the problem, the** very fact that mathematics doesn't change in time is the reason it can't produce intelligence or consciousness. Physics is needed for that.* *>> Neither intelligence nor consciousness can exist without something >> changing with time. * > > > *>I think you're just making a philosophical position out of a tautology > change=>time.* *The great thing about tautologies is that all of them are 100% true. * *You might as well add motion=>distance and heating=>temperature.* > *I can imagine that an intelligent conscious being might not be changing its position in space, and it might not be changing its temperature, but I can't imagine an intelligent conscious being not changing its thoughts in time. The trouble with pure mathematics is that it's timeless. * *>> The symbols that make up mathematical equations can't change with time, >> * > > > *> They can't change with distance either, or the ink used, or motion,... > But their meaning changes in different applications.* *"Meaning" does not "mean" anything unless there is an intelligent conscious being around because they are the only ones that are in the meaning conferring business. * *> Modern philosophers define "reality" as a substance that actually exists > in an external world, and they define "existence" as the state of having > "reality". And round and round we go.That's why I say in the modern age > it's mathematicians and physicists who are in the vanguard of the > investigation into the fundamental nature of reality, while those who write > "philosopher" on their tax forms when it asks about occupation are really > in the synonym business not the philosophy business. **And I would also > maintain that the semiconductor industry is an existence proof that > equations alone are not sufficient because they can't DO anything. **And > I would also maintain that the semiconductor industry is an existence proof > that equations alone are not sufficient because they can't DO anything.* *> The existence of something that's not equations alone and does > something, is not a proof that nothing is done by equations alone. It's a > proof that at least one thing requires more than equations to be done. * > *It's proof that if you want something that can DO things, anything, then it's going to need to have Physics up its sleeve because pure mathematics is not sufficient. * *>> If you want to actually DO something, that is to say if you want to >> make a change over a period of time, then you're going to need mass/energy.* > > > > *Actually those are conserved. What you need is low entropy energy. * *Conservation is irrelevant. What you need if you want to produce intelligence or consciousness is an arrangement of atoms that can process information; those configurations tend to be low entropy but that's not important. Information can have low entropy too but information can't process itself without the help of atoms regardless of if it's low entropy or high. * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> 6d4 > > -- 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/CAJPayv3HywAjFPd0%3DKHp%2BmV0%2BBJd4H3JxJkayxoN%2BXo8%3DBztOw%40mail.gmail.com.
