Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/30/2018 7:58 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 5:05:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 30 Sep 2018, at 08:03, Philip Thrift > wrote:


*What is a computer?*

A computer is a device that executes programs.

If we can synthesize bacteria that execute programs (which we can
do), then these bacteria are computers.


OK. You might add “… that can execute all programs”. In any
programming language. All universal number (mathematical computer,
universal Turing machine, …) can imitate any other universal
numbers. Either by Rogers compilation theorem, or by the usual
interpretation theorems.

Bruno


I now have a next version of

*Real computationalism*
*
*
 https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/real-computationalism/

=  my "pragmatic" definition of computing.

0.1. PTLOS configurations


A configuration PTLOS(π,λ,τ,ο,Σ) — lower case Greek letters π, λ, τ, 
ο, and capital Greek letter Σ are variables that take on concrete 
(particular) values — is defined:



PLTOS(π,λ,τ,ο,Σ) designates a program π that is written in a language 
λ that is transformed via a compiler/assembler τ into an output object 
ο that executes in a computing substrate Σ.




(Turing-completeness is included.)


But I want to meet therein the "consciousness challenge" of Philip 
Golff and Gaylen Strawson in the PLTOS framework (the output object 
would be a conscious agent):


6.5. A programming language including experiential modalities 
(experiential modal logic, experiential modal operators or qualifiers) 
is needed to extend the picture we have of matter [Goff] to include 
consciousness.


(Modal logic historically covers modalities such as 
possibility/necessity, belief, time, morality, knowability [ML1 
], but also self-reference 
[SR1 
],[SR2 
],[SR3 
].)




Are you trying to define consciousness into existence by assuming modal 
operators for it?  Or are you just trying to provide a language for 
talking about it?  Where is the subconscious in this theory?


Brent



Selves: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics
Galen Strawson
[Selves ]


The Subject of Experience
Galen Strawson
[SubjExp 
]




- pt
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: #darkmatter theory

[John Clark]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:27 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> *The dark matter of a galaxy responsible for the flat rotation curve is
> presumably in a cloud of spherical orbits around the galaxy.  It doesn't
> collapse to a disk, as the visible matter does, because being dark it
> doesn't radiate away energy via EM in collisions. *
>

Dark Matter wouldn't radiate anything electromagnetic but there has been
speculation that if Dark Matter is accelerated it might radiate something
comparable to it, you could call it Dark Light; although there is as of now
zero empirical evidence that it actually exists.


> > *But it must still radiate gravitational waves in collisions.  Are
> there estimates of how long this would take to collapse dark matter to a
> disk? *
>

I think it would take far far longer than the current age of the universe.
Because the Earth accelerates as it circles the sun it must give off
gravitational waves, however its been calculated that the Earth only
radiate away about 200 watts of power in the form of gravitational waves,
your toaster uses about 6 times as much. The energy radiated away only
becomes significant when the object is very dense, and the smaller the
orbit its in the more energy in the resulting gravitational waves; and its
proportional to the fifth power of the orbital radius so  the very last
orbit before collision is the one that produces nearly all of the
gravitational wave energy and takes less than a second. The orbits of Dark
Matter particles in galaxies must have a radius of many thousands of light
years, not less than a mile as in 2 neutron stars last orbit.

John K Clark



>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gene Drive and morality

[smitra]

We may well be able to get rid of these specific mosquito species, this 
may well end up proven to be a safe and effective thing to do. Also what 
John mentioned a while back in this tread about genetically modified 
rice that contains vitamin A is probably going to work well.


However, the reason why in third world countries they're having all 
these problems is because the governments there don't functioning well. 
Some countries are simply poor countries, but that's not true in all 
cases. Take e.g. India, that country is doing quite well from a 
macro-economic point of view. It's certainly not the case that India 
lacks money. Still, there is a lot of poverty in that country, and 
that's the fundamental reason why in some parts of that country malaria 
is endemic and people suffer from vitamin A deficiency.


Addressing malaria and vitamin A deficiency via technical solutions is 
then a worthwhile option, but you're then still only eliminating certain 
symptoms from a more fundamental problem. People getting vitamin A via 
rice will still be malnourished, and eliminating malaria won't cure 
tuberculosis. A technical solution to all these other problems isn't 
going to be feasible simply because there are way too many of these 
other problems caused by poor infrastructure, an ineffective government 
etc. etc.


And while here where we don't have these sorts of problems we see in 
third world countries, the same thing can be said about the other for 
the problems we do have here. The obesity epidemic, the ever increasing 
incidence of type-2 diabetes, heart attacks and stokes are not going to 
be eliminated from society by new revolutionary treatment methods. We're 
not going to get to a healthy population if that population doesn't want 
to eat healthy and doesn't want to exercise.


Saibal


On 30-09-2018 14:42, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:23 PM Russell Standish
 wrote:


___Over 10 years (say) 7 million lives are lost, diminishing our

capacity for producing the next Einstein by 0.1%. _


Well 0.1% is pretty low, but I have a hunch the probability of one
of 7 million mosquitoes becoming the next Einstein would be even
lower.


In the same time, the world's population has grown by 11.5%,

offsetting that loss many
times over.


And if a child dies or goes blind there is no need for the parents to
cry, they can just have another.

 John K Clark





 --
 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[1].
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2].


Links:
--
[1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 5:05:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Sep 2018, at 08:03, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
> *What is a computer?*
>
> A computer is a device that executes programs.
>
> If we can synthesize bacteria that execute programs (which we can do), 
> then these bacteria are computers.
>
>
> OK. You might add “… that can execute all programs”. In any programming 
> language. All universal number (mathematical computer, universal Turing 
> machine, …) can imitate any other universal numbers. Either by Rogers 
> compilation theorem, or by the usual interpretation theorems.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> I now have a next version of 

*Real computationalism*

 https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/real-computationalism/

=  my "pragmatic" definition of computing.

0.1. PTLOS configurations


A configuration PTLOS(π,λ,τ,ο,Σ) — lower case Greek letters π, λ, τ, ο, and 
capital Greek letter Σ are variables that take on concrete (particular) 
values — is defined:


PLTOS(π,λ,τ,ο,Σ) designates a program π that is written in a language λ 
that is transformed via a compiler/assembler τ into an output object ο that 
executes in a computing substrate Σ.


(Turing-completeness is included.)


But I want to meet therein the "consciousness challenge" of Philip Golff 
and Gaylen Strawson in the PLTOS framework (the output object would be a 
conscious agent):

6.5. A programming language including experiential modalities (experiential 
modal logic, experiential modal operators or qualifiers) is needed to 
extend the picture we have of matter [Goff] to include consciousness.

(Modal logic historically covers modalities such as possibility/necessity, 
belief, time, morality, knowability [ML1 
], but also self-reference [SR1 
],[SR2 
],[SR3 
].)


Selves: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics
Galen Strawson
[Selves ]


The Subject of Experience
Galen Strawson
[SubjExp 

]


- pt
 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> [Re:] forcing theory in set theories with classes. 
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
Do you follow the work of Joel David Hamkins (forcing applied to 
set-theoretic "multiverse", etc.)

(I have a basic idea of a type-theoretic parallel to this.)

*The set-theoretic multiverse*
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223

Joel David Hamkins
@JDHamkins
Professor of Logic, University of Oxford, and Sir Peter Strawson Fellow in 
Philosophy, University College Oxford. Formerly of New York.
http://jdh.hamkins.org


- pt

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gene Drive and morality

[John Clark]

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:23 PM Russell Standish 
wrote:

> *Over 10 years (say) 7 million lives are lost, diminishing our capacity
> for producing the next Einstein by 0.1%. *


Well 0.1% is pretty low, but I have a hunch the probability of one of 7
million mosquitoes becoming the next Einstein would be even lower.


> *> In the same time, the world's population has grown by 11.5%, offsetting
> that loss manytimes over.*


And if a child dies or goes blind there is no need for the parents to cry,
they can just have another.

 John K Clark






>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:02:36 PM UTC-5, kujawski...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
> Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about 
> Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis:
>
> - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences
> - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the 
> diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures.
> - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in diverse 
> structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or mathematicism vide 
> Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc.
>
> What are your thoughts. 
>
>
> Regards
>

 I think it is best to assume pragmatic stance with respect to this. The 
idea the physical universe is ultimately mathematics is a huge category 
mixing that suffers from problems. Physics is an empirical subject that 
tests the workings of a theory by performing observations and measurements. 
Mathematics is a subject concerned with abstract structures and objects and 
their logical relationships. Physical objects move through space or are an 
aspect of geometrodynamics in relativity and they obey conservation rules. 
As such mathematics is used to describe physical systems and to compute 
things. This is different than saying the two subjects are equivalent. 
Mathematics is not an empirical subject, though with computers some areas 
of math have started to take one a sort of synthetic empiricism. Physics is 
also not something that is determined entirely by logical relationships and 
just pure theory. We have some issues of course with quantum gravitation 
and whether that can ever be empirically brought to tests. 

Quantum mechanics is close to being a sort of physical logic. Quantum 
mechanics is close to being a case of MUH, though I would not go so far as 
to actually make that pronouncement. For  those who take the trouble to 
learn about the bosonic string, say by reading Polchinski's vol 1 *String 
Theory* will see this is really pure quantum mechanics according to a more 
complete understanding of the complex plane. This may go further with 
modular forms. Vol 2 of Polchinski's book works with supersymmetry. This 
might be ultimately a deeper description of quantum mechanics. Maybe 
quantum mechanics is just a modular system of automorphisms over the 
Fischer-Griess Monster Group that maintains a conservation of this as the 
fundamental vacuum state. So this all sounds highly mathematical, but I 
would still hesitate to say physics is mathematics.

The relationship between physics and mathematics is maybe unknowable. I 
think of Garrison Keillor with his Guy Noir skits that start with, "One man 
on the tenth floor of the Acme Building searches for answers to life's 
persistent questions; Guy Noir private eye."

LC

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Sep 2018, at 11:58, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 9:40:07 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 29 Sep 2018, at 13:34, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 7:16:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 21:00, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 6:49:37 PM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
>>>  wrote:
>>>  
>>> Thank you everybody for your responses. 
>>> 
>>> Bruno Marchal I looked at your statement, they are very interesting but 
>>> some very good neruoscientists argue that brain is not like computer
>>> Here for example (4min video) Edelman:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmyfQY4TaVc 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The question can be turned around. Why would anyone think a brain is 
>>> strongly comparable or identical to a computer? It has some superficial 
>>> similarities such as being able to store memory and logical functions 
>>> (which are simulated by a computer), but its cells are not two state 
>>> systems like computer transistors. AG
>> 
>> 
>> A bacteria is already a computer (at least),
>> 
>> 
>> Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store binary 
>> information.
> 
> 
> By computer I mean a number u such that phi_u() = phi_x(y), for some 
> enumeration phi_i of the partial computable function. No need of binary 
> information. But it needs digitally coded information, and that is given by 
> the genome (the sequence of adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine (French 
> spelling, sorry).
> 
> So now a computer isn't some device that executes programs, but a number? 
> Please elaborate on your mathematics. I have no idea what it is supposed to 
> mean. AG

I already did. See the thread “why is Church’s thesis a miracle”. I can explain 
again, but right now I have some work to finish. In a nutshell, choose your 
favorite Turing universal formalism, enumerate in that formalisme the code of 
the partial computable functions, and thus (with repetition) the partial 
computable functions themselves  phi_i, fix a bijection between NxN and N , then a number u is universal if phi_u() = phi_x(y). u is the computer, 
x the program, and y the data. We say that u emulates x on y.

Bruno




>> And where is the clock which pulses and advances the instruction pointer? 
>> And where is the instruction pointer located? AG
> 
> Dont confuse a computer (universal number, universal Turing machine, …)  and 
> a von Neumann physical computer. Reread my explanation in the thread “why is 
> Church’s thesis a miracle). Ask me question from there.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>  
>> and a neurone is already a rather sophisticated society of bacteria and 
>> viruses, plausibly enough. So, a society of billions of neurons should not 
>> be compared to transistors. The substitution level is plausibly much lower 
>> than the level of neurons.
>> 
>> But we don’t know in Nature anything which at some level is not emulable by 
>> a computer, except for controversial notion like
>> 
>> A) primary matter (if that exists, it is not emulable by a computer)
>> B) the reduction of the wave packet (if that exists, it is provably not 
>> emulable by a computer).
>> 
>> But there are no evidence neither for A) nor for B).
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Please give me your thought on that. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <>.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com <>.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>>> .
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Sep 2018, at 11:53, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 9:35:18 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 29 Sep 2018, at 13:16, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 10:41:42 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 4:48:44 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com <> 
>> wrote:
>>  It claims that all mathematical objects exist in "physical" reality, which 
>> is sort-of isomorphic or in some sense identical to these objects. That is, 
>> no dichotomy between "physical" and mathematical objects, and all the latter 
>> including plane waves exist in this reality. But you will never observe a 
>> plane wave, so the MUH is falsified. AG 
>> 
>> 1. Tegmark claims everything in the universe is mathematical - that is, the 
>> universe consists of mathematical objects.
>> 2. Tegmark also says that infinities should be eliminated from physics - in 
>> fact, infinities are ruining physics.
>> [ 
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/ 
>> 
>>  ]ac
>> 
>> Bruno wrote 1 & 2.  AG
>> 
>> So then via Tegmark there can be no real continuous (infinitely divisible) 
>> objects like (mathematical) waves, putting 1 and 2 together. Only particular 
>> mathematical objects exist.
>> 
>> According to Wiki, and what I've heard from its adherents, the MUH posits 
>> that ALL mathematical object or entities exist in nature. But plane waves do 
>> not exist in nature.
> 
> There is no nature that you can invoke. Once mechanism is assumed, a term 
> like nature needs to be (re-defined, or explained, without physicalist 
> assumption, implicit or explicit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> (Do you know what they are?) So the MUH as claimed by Wiki and its adherents 
>> is falsified. AG 
> 
> I agree with your conclusion, but you assume some nature or matter, which 
> cannot work in the mechanist context.
> 
> I didn't assume anything, except that plane waves will never be observed 
> (regardless of your model of external reality)

That is a too general statement. I can agree with some definition of 
observation. But then we never observe anything mathematical, still less 
infinite.

Anyway, you seem to use “observation” as a criteria of reality. Then I just did 
an observation of a plane wave, in my waking dream ...




> unless you agree to instantaneous action at a distance, and on steroids (!), 
> since as time evolves, the amplitude of a plane wave changes instantaneously 
> in all infinite directions. So I am just asserting that Tegmark's MUH has 
> been falsified since plane waves mathematically exist,

In which theory. With mechanism what exist is only the numbers (or only the 
combinators, …).



> but are never reified by whatever is out there -- matter, or nothing but 
> restrictions on motion giving rise the illusion of matter or something solid 
> existing.

OK. That is where we will be led, in the computationalist frame.



> Incidentally, I don't think the Wiki article refutes Tegmark as you claim; 
> rather it just describes it.


Read more carefully. I have refuted Tegmark in this list. Then I say that that 
wiki entry is very bad. Those are independent statements.

Bruno



> AG
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>  - pt
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 9:53:06 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 9:35:18 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29 Sep 2018, at 13:16, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 10:41:42 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 4:48:44 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:

 * It claims that all mathematical objects exist in "physical" reality, 
 which is sort-of isomorphic or in some sense identical to these objects. 
 That is, no dichotomy between "physical" and mathematical objects, and all 
 the latter including plane waves exist in this reality. But you will never 
 observe a plane wave, so the MUH is falsified. AG *

>>>
>>> 1. Tegmark claims everything in the universe is mathematical - that is, 
>>> the universe consists of mathematical objects.
>>> 2. Tegmark also says that infinities should be eliminated from physics - 
>>> in fact, *infinities are ruining physics*.
>>> [ 
>>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/ 
>>> ]ac
>>>
>>
>> Bruno wrote 1 & 2.  AG
>>
>>>
>>> So then via Tegmark there can be no real continuous (infinitely 
>>> divisible) objects like (mathematical) waves, putting 1 and 2 together. 
>>> Only particular mathematical objects exist.
>>>
>>
>> According to Wiki, and what I've heard from its adherents, the MUH posits 
>> that ALL mathematical object or entities exist in nature. But plane waves 
>> do not exist in nature. 
>>
>>
>> There is no nature that you can invoke. Once mechanism is assumed, a term 
>> like nature needs to be (re-defined, or explained, without physicalist 
>> assumption, implicit or explicit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (Do you know what they are?) So the MUH as claimed by Wiki and its 
>> adherents is falsified. AG 
>>
>>
>> I agree with your conclusion, but you assume some nature or matter, which 
>> cannot work in the mechanist context.
>>
>
> *I didn't assume anything, except that plane waves will never be observed 
> (regardless of your model of external reality) unless you agree to 
> instantaneous action at a distance, and on steroids (!), since as time 
> evolves, the amplitude of a plane wave changes instantaneously in all 
> infinite directions. So I am just asserting that Tegmark's MUH has been 
> falsified since plane waves mathematically exist, but are never reified by 
> whatever is out there -- matter, or nothing but restrictions on motion 
> giving rise the illusion of matter or something solid existing. 
> Incidentally, I don't think the Wiki article refutes Tegmark as you claim; 
> rather it just describes it. AG*
>

*Last sentence above is factually wrong. The Wiki article does contain some 
interesting criticisms of Tegmark's MUH. AG* 

>
>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  - pt
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Sep 2018, at 08:41, kujawskilucja...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Bruno Marchal thank you for your anwser.
> 
> Physicist Paul Benioff make interesting idea 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201093
> that mathematics and laws of physics coemerged somehow randomly.  

I will take a look, but probably this is old stuff, still missing the 
“mind-body” issue, which I illustrate has a deep impact on this, and where 
incompleteness plays the key role in deducing physics from arithmetic.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Sep 2018, at 08:03, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 12:30:33 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 9:28:34 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:53:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/29/2018 1:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:07:12 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/29/2018 4:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> A bacteria is already a computer (at least),
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store binary 
>>> information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the 
>>> instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG
>> 
>> Not all computers are von Neumann computers.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> Maybe he means a parallel processor, but whatever he means should be spelled 
>> out explicitly. One can't just assert, as if it's obvious, that a bacteria 
>> is already a computer.
> 
> Of course it is obvious that a bacterium computes things...like swimming 
> toward nutrients and how to make another bacterium.
> 
> Brent
> 
>  
> Bacterial computing: a form of natural computing and its applications
> - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971165/ 
> 
> 
> Bacteria make computers look like pocket calculators
> - https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/24/bacteria-computer 
> 
> 
> Bacteria Can Now Be Programmed Like a Computer
> - 
> https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/43d9en/bacteria-can-now-be-programmed-like-a-computer
>  
> 
> 
>  
> - pt
> 
> What is a computer -- what is it -- that bacteria can be seen as being like? 
> Why bother to define it. Nothing obvious here except sloppy use of analogies. 
> AG
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> What is a computer?
> 
> A computer is a device that executes programs.
> 
> If we can synthesize bacteria that execute programs (which we can do), then 
> these bacteria are computers.

OK. You might add “… that can execute all programs”. In any programming 
language. All universal number (mathematical computer, universal Turing 
machine, …) can imitate any other universal numbers. Either by Rogers 
compilation theorem, or by the usual interpretation theorems.

Bruno



> 
> - pt
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Sep 2018, at 07:30, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 9:28:34 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:53:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/29/2018 1:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:07:12 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/29/2018 4:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> A bacteria is already a computer (at least),
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store binary 
>>> information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the 
>>> instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG
>> 
>> Not all computers are von Neumann computers.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> Maybe he means a parallel processor, but whatever he means should be spelled 
>> out explicitly. One can't just assert, as if it's obvious, that a bacteria 
>> is already a computer.
> 
> Of course it is obvious that a bacterium computes things...like swimming 
> toward nutrients and how to make another bacterium.
> 
> Brent
> 
>  
> Bacterial computing: a form of natural computing and its applications
> - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971165/ 
> 
> 
> Bacteria make computers look like pocket calculators
> - https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/24/bacteria-computer 
> 
> 
> Bacteria Can Now Be Programmed Like a Computer
> - 
> https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/43d9en/bacteria-can-now-be-programmed-like-a-computer
>  
> 
> 
>  
> - ptIs 
> 
> What is a computer -- what is it -- that bacteria can be seen as being like? 
> Why bother to define it. Nothing obvious here except sloppy use of analogies. 
> AG


If phi_i is an enumeration of the partial computable function, the one closed 
to diagonalisation as I explained in the thread “why Church thesis is a 
miracle”.  Reread that post, I wrote it for you.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 22:52, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/29/2018 1:45 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com  
> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:07:12 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/29/2018 4:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>>> A bacteria is already a computer (at least),
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store binary 
>>> information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the 
>>> instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG
>> 
>> Not all computers are von Neumann computers.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> Maybe he means a parallel processor, but whatever he means should be spelled 
>> out explicitly. One can't just assert, as if it's obvious, that a bacteria 
>> is already a computer.
> 
> Of course it is obvious that a bacterium computes things...like swimming 
> toward nutrients and how to make another bacterium.

Sure. But that would not be enough to be a “creative set” (a universal number). 
Typically, self-reproduction is not Turing universal (Royer wrote a nice book 
on when a control structure is Turing universal, and very powerful recursion 
are shown to be not Turing universal, this leads to interesting subset of the 
partial computable functions, known as the sub creative hierarchies). They 
verify the SMN theorem, but not the enumeration (universality) theorem.

But a bacteria can emulate a full universal machine. The hard part is the read 
and write interface, which requires handling well some phages (virus). Might 
say that it is only bacteria + phage which are operationally Turing universal. 

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
>> One thing for sure; he doesn't know what the MUH is, and therefore cannot 
>> understand my simple falsification of the hypothesis. AG 
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 9:40:07 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Sep 2018, at 13:34, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 7:16:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 21:00, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 6:49:37 PM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>> Thank you everybody for your responses. 
>>>
>>> Bruno Marchal I looked at your statement, they are very interesting but 
>>> some very good neruoscientists argue that brain is not like computer
>>> Here for example (4min video) Edelman:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmyfQY4TaVc
>>>
>>
>> The question can be turned around. Why would anyone think a brain is 
>> strongly comparable or identical to a computer? It has some superficial 
>> similarities such as being able to store memory and logical functions 
>> (which are simulated by a computer), but its cells are not two state 
>> systems like computer transistors. AG
>>
>>
>>
>> A bacteria is already a computer (at least), 
>>
>
>
> *Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store 
> binary information. *
>
>
>
> By computer I mean a number u such that phi_u() = phi_x(y), for some 
> enumeration phi_i of the partial computable function. No need of binary 
> information. But it needs digitally coded information, and that is given by 
> the genome (the sequence of adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine (French 
> spelling, sorry).
>

*So now a computer isn't some device that executes programs, but a number? 
Please elaborate on your mathematics. I have no idea what it is supposed to 
mean. AG*

> *And where is the clock which pulses and advances the instruction pointer? 
> And where is the instruction pointer located? AG*
>
>
> Dont confuse a computer (universal number, universal Turing machine, …) 
>  and a von Neumann physical computer. Reread my explanation in the thread 
> “why is Church’s thesis a miracle). Ask me question from there.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>> and a neurone is already a rather sophisticated society of bacteria and 
>> viruses, plausibly enough. So, a society of billions of neurons should not 
>> be compared to transistors. The substitution level is plausibly much lower 
>> than the level of neurons.
>>
>> But we don’t know in Nature anything which at some level is not emulable 
>> by a computer, except for controversial notion like
>>
>> A) primary matter (if that exists, it is not emulable by a computer)
>> B) the reduction of the wave packet (if that exists, it is provably not 
>> emulable by a computer).
>>
>> But there are no evidence neither for A) nor for B).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please give me your thought on that. 
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 20:59, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/29/2018 12:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 21:00, agrayson2...@gmail.com 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 6:49:37 PM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
>>>  wrote:
>>>  
>>> Thank you everybody for your responses. 
>>> 
>>> Bruno Marchal I looked at your statement, they are very interesting but 
>>> some very good neruoscientists argue that brain is not like computer
>>> Here for example (4min video) Edelman:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmyfQY4TaVc 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The question can be turned around. Why would anyone think a brain is 
>>> strongly comparable or identical to a computer? It has some superficial 
>>> similarities such as being able to store memory and logical functions 
>>> (which are simulated by a computer), but its cells are not two state 
>>> systems like computer transistors. AG
>> 
>> 
>> A bacteria is already a computer (at least), and a neurone is already a 
>> rather sophisticated society of bacteria and viruses, plausibly enough. So, 
>> a society of billions of neurons should not be compared to transistors. The 
>> substitution level is plausibly much lower than the level of neurons.
> 
> It has been estimated that simulating a single neuron requires a 
> micro-controller like an AVR, which contains 80,000 transistors.
> 
> 


Nice illustration. Yes, a neurone is already an incredibly complex machinery. I 
bet that it would need even much more than 80.000 transistors.  Today we know 
that the glial cells do participate in the information treatment. They don’t 
use axons, but communicate through chemical wave. Our substitution level, 
assuming mechanism, might be the atomic level, in fact the electronically 
level, near the Heisenberg uncertainty position treshold. At least if we want 
to survive integrally, with our precise memory and character.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> But we don’t know in Nature anything which at some level is not emulable by 
>> a computer, except for controversial notion like
>> 
>> A) primary matter (if that exists, it is not emulable by a computer)
>> B) the reduction of the wave packet (if that exists, it is provably not 
>> emulable by a computer).
>> 
>> But there are no evidence neither for A) nor for B).
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Please give me your thought on that. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 9:35:18 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Sep 2018, at 13:16, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 10:41:42 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 4:48:44 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> * It claims that all mathematical objects exist in "physical" reality, 
>>> which is sort-of isomorphic or in some sense identical to these objects. 
>>> That is, no dichotomy between "physical" and mathematical objects, and all 
>>> the latter including plane waves exist in this reality. But you will never 
>>> observe a plane wave, so the MUH is falsified. AG *
>>>
>>
>> 1. Tegmark claims everything in the universe is mathematical - that is, 
>> the universe consists of mathematical objects.
>> 2. Tegmark also says that infinities should be eliminated from physics - 
>> in fact, *infinities are ruining physics*.
>> [ 
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/ 
>> ]ac
>>
>
> Bruno wrote 1 & 2.  AG
>
>>
>> So then via Tegmark there can be no real continuous (infinitely 
>> divisible) objects like (mathematical) waves, putting 1 and 2 together. 
>> Only particular mathematical objects exist.
>>
>
> According to Wiki, and what I've heard from its adherents, the MUH posits 
> that ALL mathematical object or entities exist in nature. But plane waves 
> do not exist in nature. 
>
>
> There is no nature that you can invoke. Once mechanism is assumed, a term 
> like nature needs to be (re-defined, or explained, without physicalist 
> assumption, implicit or explicit.
>
>
>
>
> (Do you know what they are?) So the MUH as claimed by Wiki and its 
> adherents is falsified. AG 
>
>
> I agree with your conclusion, but you assume some nature or matter, which 
> cannot work in the mechanist context.
>

*I didn't assume anything, except that plane waves will never be observed 
(regardless of your model of external reality) unless you agree to 
instantaneous action at a distance, and on steroids (!), since as time 
evolves, the amplitude of a plane wave changes instantaneously in all 
infinite directions. So I am just asserting that Tegmark's MUH has been 
falsified since plane waves mathematically exist, but are never reified by 
whatever is out there -- matter, or nothing but restrictions on motion 
giving rise the illusion of matter or something solid existing. 
Incidentally, I don't think the Wiki article refutes Tegmark as you claim; 
rather it just describes it. AG*

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>>  - pt
>>
>
> -- 
> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 14:59, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:34:15 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 7:16:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> A bacteria is already a computer (at least),
> 
> 
> Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store binary 
> information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the instruction 
> pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG
>  
> 
> 
> There is the famous tic-tac-toe playing enzymes [ 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing#Tic-tac-toe_game ] created in 
> 2002. Maybe the first synbio life forms to compute things. (More recent 
> little biocomputers are in the news all the time.)


Intersting. I have myself work with the geneticist René Thomas on how far we 
can program a bacteria to do some typical elementary calculation. He succeeded 
in implementing the if then else, and some infinite loop, like adding a plasmid 
(a little circular DNA strand) back in and out the main bacterial “chromosome”. 

Unfortunately, the mathematicians refuse that I continue this cooperation 
(which was my master thesis) and ask me to work on forcing theory in set 
theories with classes. 

We did biocomputing 40 years ago. I planned a concentration of bacteria and 
bacteriophages allowing a vey huge parallel processing. I have kept contact 
with biologist and biochemist all my life. I really discovered the universal 
machine in biology book, before discovering that all this was already implement 
in the numbers, which makes me decide to study mathematical logic instead. My 
goal has always been philosophical or theological, but those field are sick 
since long (since 529, precisely albeit symbolically).

Bruno





> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 13:34, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 7:16:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 21:00, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 6:49:37 PM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>>  
>> Thank you everybody for your responses. 
>> 
>> Bruno Marchal I looked at your statement, they are very interesting but some 
>> very good neruoscientists argue that brain is not like computer
>> Here for example (4min video) Edelman:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmyfQY4TaVc 
>> 
>> 
>> The question can be turned around. Why would anyone think a brain is 
>> strongly comparable or identical to a computer? It has some superficial 
>> similarities such as being able to store memory and logical functions (which 
>> are simulated by a computer), but its cells are not two state systems like 
>> computer transistors. AG
> 
> 
> A bacteria is already a computer (at least),
> 
> 
> Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store binary 
> information.


By computer I mean a number u such that phi_u() = phi_x(y), for some 
enumeration phi_i of the partial computable function. No need of binary 
information. But it needs digitally coded information, and that is given by the 
genome (the sequence of adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine (French spelling, 
sorry).





> And where is the clock which pulses and advances the instruction pointer? And 
> where is the instruction pointer located? AG

Dont confuse a computer (universal number, universal Turing machine, …)  and a 
von Neumann physical computer. Reread my explanation in the thread “why is 
Church’s thesis a miracle). Ask me question from there.

Bruno




>  
> and a neurone is already a rather sophisticated society of bacteria and 
> viruses, plausibly enough. So, a society of billions of neurons should not be 
> compared to transistors. The substitution level is plausibly much lower than 
> the level of neurons.
> 
> But we don’t know in Nature anything which at some level is not emulable by a 
> computer, except for controversial notion like
> 
> A) primary matter (if that exists, it is not emulable by a computer)
> B) the reduction of the wave packet (if that exists, it is provably not 
> emulable by a computer).
> 
> But there are no evidence neither for A) nor for B).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Please give me your thought on that. 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 13:16, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 10:41:42 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 4:48:44 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com <> 
> wrote:
>  It claims that all mathematical objects exist in "physical" reality, which 
> is sort-of isomorphic or in some sense identical to these objects. That is, 
> no dichotomy between "physical" and mathematical objects, and all the latter 
> including plane waves exist in this reality. But you will never observe a 
> plane wave, so the MUH is falsified. AG 
> 
> 1. Tegmark claims everything in the universe is mathematical - that is, the 
> universe consists of mathematical objects.
> 2. Tegmark also says that infinities should be eliminated from physics - in 
> fact, infinities are ruining physics.
> [ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/ 
>  
> ]ac
> 
> Bruno wrote 1 & 2.  AG
> 
> So then via Tegmark there can be no real continuous (infinitely divisible) 
> objects like (mathematical) waves, putting 1 and 2 together. Only particular 
> mathematical objects exist.
> 
> According to Wiki, and what I've heard from its adherents, the MUH posits 
> that ALL mathematical object or entities exist in nature. But plane waves do 
> not exist in nature.

There is no nature that you can invoke. Once mechanism is assumed, a term like 
nature needs to be (re-defined, or explained, without physicalist assumption, 
implicit or explicit.




> (Do you know what they are?) So the MUH as claimed by Wiki and its adherents 
> is falsified. AG 

I agree with your conclusion, but you assume some nature or matter, which 
cannot work in the mechanist context.

Bruno




> 
>  - pt
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 12:41, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 4:48:44 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>  It claims that all mathematical objects exist in "physical" reality, which 
> is sort-of isomorphic or in some sense identical to these objects. That is, 
> no dichotomy between "physical" and mathematical objects, and all the latter 
> including plane waves exist in this reality. But you will never observe a 
> plane wave, so the MUH is falsified. AG 
> 
> 1. Tegmark claims everything in the universe is mathematical - that is, the 
> universe consists of mathematical objects.
> 2. Tegmark also says that infinities should be eliminated from physics - in 
> fact, infinities are ruining physics.
> [ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/ 
> ]

But that is correct, as I urge Tegmark to avoid the axiom of infinity, or to 
propose clearly a non-computationalist hypothesis. He agreed. 

Bruno



> 
> So then via Tegmark there can be no real continuous (infinitely divisible) 
> objects like (mathematical) waves, putting 1 and 2 together. Only particular 
> mathematical objects exist.
> 
>  - pt
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 11:48, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 9:22:30 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:57:54 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 29 Sep 2018, at 09:16, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:40:05 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 18:37, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 4:04:41 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 28 Sep 2018, at 11:32, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 1:02:36 AM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
  wrote:
 Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about 
 Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis:
 f
 - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences
 - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the 
 diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures.
 - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in diverse 
 structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or mathematicism vide 
 Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc.
 
 What are your thoughts. 
 
 If it's what I think it is, it's demonstrably wrong. One counter example 
 suffices; there are plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, but if 
 you know what plane waves are, they clearly do NOT exist in physical 
 reality.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> With mathematicalism, we don’t assume that there is a 
>>> (primitive/irreducible) physical reality.
>>> 
>>> You are begging the question.
>>> 
>>> In what way?  The MUH says, for example, that for every mathematical 
>>> solution or equation, there is a (perceived) physical universe mapped 
>>> identically from, or into that solution or equation. I gave a simple 
>>> counter example. AG
>> 
>> If that is the MUH, then that it is plainly ridiculous, indeed. To have a 
>> perceived universe, you need a measure on the computation/sigma-sentences. 
>> The physical emerges from an arithmetical phenomenon (assuming mechanism in 
>> cognitive science). 
>> 
>> The version of mathematicalism implied by mechanism does not lead any choice 
>> for the “physical reality”, it has to be a statistic on computations 
>> structured by the “observable” mode of self-reference. That indeed predicts 
>> quantum logic, and the many “histories” interpretation of arithmetic. Oracle 
>> are not impossible, but there are no evidence for them, and should be 
>> invoked in last resort (a bit like the “Alien” in cosmology).
>> 
>> The empirical evidence is that there is no physical universe at all.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> This double-talk nonsense IMO. I clearly gave a counter-example to the MUH,
> 
> 
> You want make some mathematical object physical real. That assume some 
> physical reality, which cannot be done.
> 
> This is the MUH, not what I want or believe. AG 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis 
> 
> 
> Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical 
> structure.[3] 
> 
>  That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but 
> is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure 
> ). Mathematical 
> existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist 
> mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are 
> "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex 
> enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive 
> themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[4] 
> 
> 
> 
> To say that a mathematical object  exist physically, does not make sense. It 
> starts with a category error.
> 
> I don't think you know what the MUH is. I have falsified it. AG 
> 
> No mathematical object can be a physical object. But what remains possible is 
> that a physical object belongs to the dream of a person supported by 
> (infinity) of computation (which are arithmetical object a priori).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> falsifying it. Moreover, I explained clearly why I used "perceived". I just 
>> meant that plane waves can never be observed,
> 
> 
> You don’t need to go that far. The numbers 0, 1, 2, … cannot be observed. No 
> mathematical object can be observed. They do not belong to the category of 
> what can be observed.
> 
> Now, an observation might be explained by a sort of arithmetical 
> prestidigitation. Some numbers can make some numbers believing in a lot of 
> things.
> 
> 
> 
>> and since they are solutions to Maxwell's equations, the MUH is 

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 11:33, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The arithmeticalist thinks matter is fiction.
> The materialist thinks arithmetic is fiction.
> 
> That's all I know. :)


Good summary. My result is that Mechanism (the idea that my body is Turing 
emulable at a level of description relevant to my consciousness) entails 
arithmeticalism.

Arithmeticalism is not assumed. That materialism is false is the conclusion, 
and the proof is constructive, showing exactly how to recover the physical 
appearances, and it works, at least as far as it has been verified until now. 
Physicalism has never worked (indeed, that explains the rise of most 
contemporary religion). Physicalism is tucked on the mind-body problem, which 
is traditionally put under the rug.

Bruno




> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 11:22, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:57:54 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 29 Sep 2018, at 09:16, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:40:05 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 18:37, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 4:04:41 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 28 Sep 2018, at 11:32, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 
 On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 1:02:36 AM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
  wrote:
 Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about 
 Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis:
 f
 - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences
 - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the 
 diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures.
 - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in diverse 
 structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or mathematicism vide 
 Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc.
 
 What are your thoughts. 
 
 If it's what I think it is, it's demonstrably wrong. One counter example 
 suffices; there are plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, but if 
 you know what plane waves are, they clearly do NOT exist in physical 
 reality.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> With mathematicalism, we don’t assume that there is a 
>>> (primitive/irreducible) physical reality.
>>> 
>>> You are begging the question.
>>> 
>>> In what way?  The MUH says, for example, that for every mathematical 
>>> solution or equation, there is a (perceived) physical universe mapped 
>>> identically from, or into that solution or equation. I gave a simple 
>>> counter example. AG
>> 
>> If that is the MUH, then that it is plainly ridiculous, indeed. To have a 
>> perceived universe, you need a measure on the computation/sigma-sentences. 
>> The physical emerges from an arithmetical phenomenon (assuming mechanism in 
>> cognitive science). 
>> 
>> The version of mathematicalism implied by mechanism does not lead any choice 
>> for the “physical reality”, it has to be a statistic on computations 
>> structured by the “observable” mode of self-reference. That indeed predicts 
>> quantum logic, and the many “histories” interpretation of arithmetic. Oracle 
>> are not impossible, but there are no evidence for them, and should be 
>> invoked in last resort (a bit like the “Alien” in cosmology).
>> 
>> The empirical evidence is that there is no physical universe at all.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> This double-talk nonsense IMO. I clearly gave a counter-example to the MUH,
> 
> 
> You want make some mathematical object physical real. That assume some 
> physical reality, which cannot be done.
> 
> This is the MUH, not what I want or believe. AG 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
> 
> Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical 
> structure.[3] 
> 
>  That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but 
> is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure 
> ). Mathematical 
> existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist 
> mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are 
> "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex 
> enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive 
> themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[4] 
> 

That is refuted by the mechanist hypothesis and its consequence, although it is 
less wrong that materialism, it fails to see that the physical is 
phenomenological. I have developed this with more details a long time ago in 
this list. The shorter way to understand this is to study my papers. To equate 
mathematical existence with physical existence does not make any sense, and 
might be unfair to Tegmark (but his view have evolved, so I am not sure).
That wiki entry is bad, but I would prefer people argue instead of relying on 
links, which distracts and add obscurity more than adding light. I have not the 
time, but I could criticised each line of that entry.

Perhaps the main critics is that the “mathematical universe hypothesis” is not 
an hypothesis, nor a speculation. It is the material hypothesis which is the 
speculation here, as no-one has ever found the slightest experimental evidence 
for matter, in the ontological sense. Nothing makes sense in that wiki page.






> 
> 
> To say that a mathematical object  exist physically, does not make sense. It 
> starts with a category error.
> 
> I don't think you kn

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Sep 2018, at 08:37, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2018, at 02:38, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
> On 28 Sep 2018, at 06:29, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
> 
> But you do not seem to go the additional step of saying that mathematical 
> objects, numbers and so on, are objects that actually exist (which would 
> be a form of platonism).
 
 I use “exist” in the same sense as “it exist a number x such that x + 7 = 
 8”. 
>>> 
>>> That is precisely why you need to study the philosophy of mathematics.
>> 
>> I love, but that is not relevant here, at least before to study the science.
>> 
>>> It might teach you not to confuse the use of the existential quantifier 
>>> with an ontology.
>> 
>> You call confusion what is simply the definition to start with.
> 
> You can't define cats to be the same as dogs!


And where did I do that? If you care to look more closely to what I say, I 
think you will on the contrary, see a lot of cautiousness  used in the 
identification. In the math part, no identification is provided without a 
representation theorem. 




> 
>> You do seem playing rhetorical semantical game to avoid studying a theory.
> 
> The linguistic games are all yours.


Please, if you miss a point, just ask. Vague negative generality will not help 
any one.



> 
> 
>> By definition: the ontology is given by the the things you NEED to assume, 
>> because no theories at all can explain their existence.
> 
> Ontology is the science of being in general, embracing such things as the 
> nature of existence and the categorical structure of reality. This is not an 
> area in which there is universal agreement among philosophers (or 
> mathematicians), so it is perfectly respectable to disagree with your 
> particular view.

I am a scientist. There is no disagreement. You understand or miss the point. 
The “disagreement” are handle by accepting that we are working in different 
theories. 

I do not offer any particular view. I state theories, theorems and facts. 

I have defined my use of the term “ontology”. It concerns the primitive terms 
of the basic theory. Primitive means that we consider them to be irreducible, 
but in our case (Mechanism) this is up to Turing-equivalence.

So, with mechanism, eventually we come up with the idea that the ontology 
contains only numbers, or combinators, or lambda terms, etc. Any Turing 
complete theory would work. 



> 
>> With mechanism, that ONLY number exists is a consequence of the belief that 
>> a physical universe exist,
> 
> I am glad that you see that numbers only exist because the universe exists!

Of course.

But that does not means that the universe or any physical things (like space, 
time, particles, …) needs to be assumed as part of the ontology (in the sense 
above).





> 
>> and that I reline live in that universe when the constituents of the brain 
>> are permuted in some functional way.
>> 
>> So, what you call confusion is the result of work. 
>> 
>> I guess you call it a confusion because it informs your favorite ontology (a 
>> physical world perhaps?).
>> 
>> Let us do science first, and discuss philosophy after. I know that doing 
>> science in metaphysics and theology is not common, but that is what the 
>> mechanist assumption makes possible to do, and that is what I have done 
>> (which obviously do not please to many philosophers, like they were not 
>> pleased when Newton invaded their territory too).
>> 
>> Also, when you do a critics, you must make it in a much more precise way. If 
>> you really think there is a confusion somewhere, you need to explain it in 
>> detail so that everyone see what you mean.
> 
> I think that the confusion you display between an existential quantifier in 
> mathematics and an ontology is perfectly clear to everyone.

I think you are not trying to understand what I say. If you believe that  I am 
mistaken anywhere, you need to say where precisely. You are just using vague 
philosophical remark to convince your self that you don’t need to do the 
homework, it seems to me.

Bruno




> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 1:41:43 AM UTC-5, kujawski...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal thank you for your anwser.
>
> Physicist Paul Benioff make interesting idea 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201093
> that mathematics and laws of physics coemerged somehow randomly.  
>


Thanks for this reference! Much of it jibes with my codicalist-materialist 
view.


*The essential point to make here is that language is physical.  *


*Gödel maps can also be used in physical theories. However, for these 
theories, they have some different properties. For a coherent theory of 
mathematics and physics, or for any physical theory that is universally 
applicable, a G¨odel map does not extend the domain of applicability of the 
theory. The reason is that, since language is physical, all expressions of 
any language are already in the theory domain as states of physical 
systems. *

*Finally it should be noted that it may be worthwhile to replace validity 
in the basic requirement with consistency.*

- pt

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.