Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 4:51:57 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:42 PM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:01:26 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:50 PM  wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:58:24 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:05 PM  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:57 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM  wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift  
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift <
> cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think truth is primitive.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>>
>> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and 
>> *matter* are linked:
>>
>> "As a matter of fact, ..."
>> "The truth of the matter is ..."
>> "It matters that ..."
>> ...
>> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]
>>
>
> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps 
> removed from truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more 
> directly is 
> thusly:
>
> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation 
> happens to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain 
> values assigned to its variables) maps its variables to states of 
> the time 
> evolution of the wave function of our universe.  You might say 
> that we 
> (literally not figuratively) live within such an equation.  That 
> its truth 
> reifies what we call matter.
>
> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than 
> this.  e.g. because the following statement is *true* "two 
> has a successor" then there exists a successor to 2 distinct from 
> any 
> previous number.  Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" 
> implies the existence of a factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.
>
> Jason
>
>
>  
>
>>
>> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if 
>> its concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are 
>> generated from 
>> sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another 
>> judgment, its 
>> truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for 
>> example, pure 
>> mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
>> causality) 
>> of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has 
>> transcendental 
>> truth."
>> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]
>>
>>
> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth 
> concerning the integers is sufficient to yield the universe, 
> matter, and 
> all that we see around us.
>
> Jason
>



 In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) 
 truth and *linguistic* (from language) truth.

 [ 
 https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ 
 ] 

 Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory 
 (RTT) , functional type theory (FTT) languages.

 Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic 
 objects of Peano arithmetic (PA).

 Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry 
 Field, refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field 
 ]).


>>> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, 
>>> than assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.
>>>
>

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:42 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:01:26 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:50 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:58:24 PM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:05 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:57 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Monday, December 10, 2018,  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:



 On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift <
 cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think truth is primitive.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
>
> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and
> *matter* are linked:
>
> "As a matter of fact, ..."
> "The truth of the matter is ..."
> "It matters that ..."
> ...
> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]
>

 I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps
 removed from truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more 
 directly is
 thusly:

 There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation
 happens to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain
 values assigned to its variables) maps its variables to states of 
 the time
 evolution of the wave function of our universe.  You might say 
 that we
 (literally not figuratively) live within such an equation.  That 
 its truth
 reifies what we call matter.

 But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than
 this.  e.g. because the following statement is *true* "two has
 a successor" then there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any 
 previous
 number.  Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies
 the existence of a factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.

 Jason




>
> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its
> concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated 
> from
> sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another 
> judgment, its
> truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for 
> example, pure
> mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
> causality)
> of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has 
> transcendental
> truth."
> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]
>
>
 I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth
 concerning the integers is sufficient to yield the universe, 
 matter, and
 all that we see around us.

 Jason

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter)
>>> truth and *linguistic* (from language) truth.
>>>
>>> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/
>>> ]
>>>
>>> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory
>>> (RTT) , functional type theory (FTT) languages.
>>>
>>> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic
>>> objects of Peano arithmetic (PA).
>>>
>>> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry
>>> Field, refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).
>>>
>>>
>> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less,
>> than assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.
>>
>
> Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs
> additional postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is 
> derivable
> from arithmetic. AG
>
>>
>>
 The above statement is false.

>>

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:01:26 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:50 PM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:58:24 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:05 PM  wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:57 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018,  wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift  
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
>
> I think truth is primitive.
>
> Jason
>


 As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and 
 *matter* are linked:

 "As a matter of fact, ..."
 "The truth of the matter is ..."
 "It matters that ..."
 ...
 [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]

>>>
>>> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps 
>>> removed from truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more 
>>> directly is 
>>> thusly:
>>>
>>> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation 
>>> happens to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain 
>>> values assigned to its variables) maps its variables to states of 
>>> the time 
>>> evolution of the wave function of our universe.  You might say that 
>>> we 
>>> (literally not figuratively) live within such an equation.  That 
>>> its truth 
>>> reifies what we call matter.
>>>
>>> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than 
>>> this.  e.g. because the following statement is *true* "two has 
>>> a successor" then there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any 
>>> previous 
>>> number.  Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the 
>>> existence of a factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>

 Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its 
 concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated 
 from 
 sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another 
 judgment, its 
 truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, 
 pure 
 mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
 causality) 
 of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has 
 transcendental 
 truth."
 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]


>>> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning 
>>> the integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all 
>>> that we 
>>> see around us.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) 
>> truth and *linguistic* (from language) truth.
>>
>> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ 
>> ] 
>>
>> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory 
>> (RTT) , functional type theory (FTT) languages.
>>
>> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic 
>> objects of Peano arithmetic (PA).
>>
>> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry 
>> Field, refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).
>>
>>
> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, 
> than assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.
>

 Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs 
 additional postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is 
 derivable 
 from arithmetic. AG 

>
>
>>> The above statement is false.
>>>
>>> With arithmetic alone (even peano arithmetic) you get the emulations 
>>> of all possible programs.  Under the current leading theory of 
>>> consciousness by those who st

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:59 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:58:24 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Supposing every thing you write above is true, how does this produce the
>>> illusion of matter? TIA, AG
>>>


>>>
>> This is explained in Bruno's work:
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.htm
>>
>> Also in a recent paper by Markus Muller:
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826.pdf
>>
>> The main conclusions are confirmed by experience, namely:
>>
>>>
>>>- “What I observe seems to be fundamentally nondeterministic; it
>>>seems that that there is irreducible randomness that governs my 
>>> experience.”
>>>
>>>
>>>- “But it seems that this randomness is itself subject to simple
>>>laws, which I can write down in concise equations. I can feed these
>>>equations into a computer and use them to predict future observations 
>>> quite
>>>successfully, even if only probabilistically.”
>>>
>>> It also predicts a "Big Bang":
>>
>> In particular, we will see that our theory predicts (under the assumption
>>> just mentioned) that observers should indeed expect to see two facts which
>>> are features of our physics as we know it: first, the fact that the
>>> observer seems to be part of an external world that evolves in time (a
>>> “universe”), and second, that this external world seems to have had an
>>> absolute beginning in the past (the “Big Bang”).
>>
>>
>>  Jason
>>
>
>
> These complexity-oriented computing theories (like Markus Muller's [
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01826 ] above) are indeed interesting.
>
> Also see
>
> Noson Yanofsky
> http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~noson/pubs.html
> http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/chaos-makes-the-multiverse-unnecessary
>
> One can write the universal machine in binary lambda calculus (BLC) of
> course (as a binary string):
> https://tromp.github.io/cl/Binary_lambda_calculus.html
>
> There is also higher-order modal logic theorem provers.
>
> (But one of these is a refutation of the existence of matter, which we use
> to write the above articles and codebases.)
>
>
No one is refuting the existence of matter, only the idea that matter is
primary.  That is, that matter is not derivative from something more
fundamental.

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 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: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:50 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:58:24 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:05 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:57 PM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:


 I think truth is primitive.

 Jason

>>>
>>>
>>> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and
>>> *matter* are linked:
>>>
>>> "As a matter of fact, ..."
>>> "The truth of the matter is ..."
>>> "It matters that ..."
>>> ...
>>> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]
>>>
>>
>> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps
>> removed from truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more 
>> directly is
>> thusly:
>>
>> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation
>> happens to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain
>> values assigned to its variables) maps its variables to states of 
>> the time
>> evolution of the wave function of our universe.  You might say that 
>> we
>> (literally not figuratively) live within such an equation.  That its 
>> truth
>> reifies what we call matter.
>>
>> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.
>> e.g. because the following statement is *true* "two has a
>> successor" then there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any 
>> previous
>> number.  Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the
>> existence of a factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its
>>> concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from
>>> sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another 
>>> judgment, its
>>> truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, 
>>> pure
>>> mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
>>> causality)
>>> of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has 
>>> transcendental
>>> truth."
>>> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]
>>>
>>>
>> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning
>> the integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all 
>> that we
>> see around us.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
>
>
> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth
> and *linguistic* (from language) truth.
>
> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/
> ]
>
> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory
> (RTT) , functional type theory (FTT) languages.
>
> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic
> objects of Peano arithmetic (PA).
>
> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry
> Field, refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).
>
>
 Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than
 assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.

>>>
>>> Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs
>>> additional postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is derivable
>>> from arithmetic. AG
>>>


>> The above statement is false.
>>
>> With arithmetic alone (even peano arithmetic) you get the emulations
>> of all possible programs.  Under the current leading theory of
>> consciousness by those who study the problem, that computation yields 
>> every
>> possible conscious state, including that of your own, in this moment 
>> right
>> now, believing yourself to be in a universe ruled by quantum mechanics.
>>
>> The appearance of a multiverse is itself a 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:44 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:58:24 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Supposing every thing you write above is true, how does this produce the 
>>> illusion of matter? TIA, AG 
>>>
  

>>>
>> This is explained in Bruno's work: 
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.htm
>>
>> Also in a recent paper by Markus Muller: 
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826.pdf
>>
>> The main conclusions are confirmed by experience, namely:
>>
>>>
>>>- “What I observe seems to be fundamentally nondeterministic; it 
>>>seems that that there is irreducible randomness that governs my 
>>> experience.”
>>>
>>>
>>>- “But it seems that this randomness is itself subject to simple 
>>>laws, which I can write down in concise equations. I can feed these 
>>>equations into a computer and use them to predict future observations 
>>> quite 
>>>successfully, even if only probabilistically.”
>>>
>>> It also predicts a "Big Bang":
>>
>> In particular, we will see that our theory predicts (under the assumption 
>>> just mentioned) that observers should indeed expect to see two facts which 
>>> are features of our physics as we know it: first, the fact that the 
>>> observer seems to be part of an external world that evolves in time (a 
>>> “universe”), and second, that this external world seems to have had an 
>>> absolute beginning in the past (the “Big Bang”).
>>
>>  
>>  Jason
>>
>
>
> These complexity-oriented computing theories (like Markus Muller's [ 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01826 
> 
>  
> ] above) are 
>

  Markus Mueller [sp.] 

> indeed interesting.
>
> Also see
>
> Noson Yanofsky
> http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~noson/pubs.html
> http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/chaos-makes-the-multiverse-unnecessary
>
> One can write the universal machine in binary lambda calculus (BLC) of 
> course (as a binary string):
> https://tromp.github.io/cl/Binary_lambda_calculus.html
>
> There is also higher-order modal logic theorem provers.
>
> (But one of these is a refutation of the existence of matter, which we use 
> to write [and execute] the above articles and codebases.)
>
> - 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: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 11:50:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:58:24 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:05 PM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:57 PM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift  
 wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:


 I think truth is primitive.

 Jason

>>>
>>>
>>> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and 
>>> *matter* are linked:
>>>
>>> "As a matter of fact, ..."
>>> "The truth of the matter is ..."
>>> "It matters that ..."
>>> ...
>>> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]
>>>
>>
>> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps 
>> removed from truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more 
>> directly is 
>> thusly:
>>
>> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation 
>> happens to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain 
>> values assigned to its variables) maps its variables to states of 
>> the time 
>> evolution of the wave function of our universe.  You might say that 
>> we 
>> (literally not figuratively) live within such an equation.  That its 
>> truth 
>> reifies what we call matter.
>>
>> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  
>> e.g. because the following statement is *true* "two has a 
>> successor" then there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any 
>> previous 
>> number.  Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the 
>> existence of a factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its 
>>> concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from 
>>> sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another 
>>> judgment, its 
>>> truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, 
>>> pure 
>>> mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
>>> causality) 
>>> of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has 
>>> transcendental 
>>> truth."
>>> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]
>>>
>>>
>> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning 
>> the integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all 
>> that we 
>> see around us.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
>
>
> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth 
> and *linguistic* (from language) truth.
>
> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ 
> ] 
>
> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory 
> (RTT) , functional type theory (FTT) languages.
>
> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic 
> objects of Peano arithmetic (PA).
>
> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry 
> Field, refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).
>
>
 Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than 
 assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.

>>>
>>> Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs 
>>> additional postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is 
>>> derivable 
>>> from arithmetic. AG 
>>>


>> The above statement is false.
>>
>> With arithmetic alone (even peano arithmetic) you get the emulations 
>> of all possible programs.  Under the current leading theory of 
>> consciousness by those who study the problem, that computation yields 
>> every 
>> possible conscious state, including that of your own, in this moment 
>> right 
>> now, believing yourself to be in a univers

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:58:24 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
>
>> Supposing every thing you write above is true, how does this produce the 
>> illusion of matter? TIA, AG 
>>
>>>  
>>>
>>
> This is explained in Bruno's work: 
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.htm
>
> Also in a recent paper by Markus Muller: 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826.pdf
>
> The main conclusions are confirmed by experience, namely:
>
>>
>>- “What I observe seems to be fundamentally nondeterministic; it 
>>seems that that there is irreducible randomness that governs my 
>> experience.”
>>
>>
>>- “But it seems that this randomness is itself subject to simple 
>>laws, which I can write down in concise equations. I can feed these 
>>equations into a computer and use them to predict future observations 
>> quite 
>>successfully, even if only probabilistically.”
>>
>> It also predicts a "Big Bang":
>
> In particular, we will see that our theory predicts (under the assumption 
>> just mentioned) that observers should indeed expect to see two facts which 
>> are features of our physics as we know it: first, the fact that the 
>> observer seems to be part of an external world that evolves in time (a 
>> “universe”), and second, that this external world seems to have had an 
>> absolute beginning in the past (the “Big Bang”).
>
>  
>  Jason
>


These complexity-oriented computing theories (like Markus Muller's [ 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01826 ] above) are indeed interesting.

Also see

Noson Yanofsky
http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~noson/pubs.html
http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/chaos-makes-the-multiverse-unnecessary

One can write the universal machine in binary lambda calculus (BLC) of 
course (as a binary string):
https://tromp.github.io/cl/Binary_lambda_calculus.html

There is also higher-order modal logic theorem provers.

(But one of these is a refutation of the existence of matter, which we use 
to write the above articles and codebases.)

- 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: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:58:24 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:05 PM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:57 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM  wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift  
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think truth is primitive.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>>
>> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and 
>> *matter* are linked:
>>
>> "As a matter of fact, ..."
>> "The truth of the matter is ..."
>> "It matters that ..."
>> ...
>> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]
>>
>
> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps removed 
> from truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is 
> thusly:
>
> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation 
> happens to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain 
> values assigned to its variables) maps its variables to states of the 
> time 
> evolution of the wave function of our universe.  You might say that 
> we 
> (literally not figuratively) live within such an equation.  That its 
> truth 
> reifies what we call matter.
>
> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  
> e.g. because the following statement is *true* "two has a 
> successor" then there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any 
> previous 
> number.  Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the 
> existence of a factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.
>
> Jason
>
>
>  
>
>>
>> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its 
>> concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from 
>> sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another 
>> judgment, its 
>> truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, 
>> pure 
>> mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
>> causality) 
>> of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has 
>> transcendental 
>> truth."
>> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]
>>
>>
> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning 
> the integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all 
> that we 
> see around us.
>
> Jason
>



 In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth 
 and *linguistic* (from language) truth.

 [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ ] 

 Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory 
 (RTT) , functional type theory (FTT) languages.

 Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic 
 objects of Peano arithmetic (PA).

 Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry 
 Field, refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).


>>> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than 
>>> assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.
>>>
>>
>> Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs 
>> additional postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is derivable 
>> from arithmetic. AG 
>>
>>>
>>>
> The above statement is false.
>
> With arithmetic alone (even peano arithmetic) you get the emulations 
> of all possible programs.  Under the current leading theory of 
> consciousness by those who study the problem, that computation yields 
> every 
> possible conscious state, including that of your own, in this moment 
> right 
> now, believing yourself to be in a universe ruled by quantum mechanics.
>
> The appearance of a multiverse is itself a direct consequence of every 
> possibility being realized by every program execution.
>

 *So every possible program executes or has executed, giving rise to 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:05 PM  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:57 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Monday, December 10, 2018,  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:



 On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think truth is primitive.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
>
> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and *matter*
> are linked:
>
> "As a matter of fact, ..."
> "The truth of the matter is ..."
> "It matters that ..."
> ...
> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]
>

 I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps removed
 from truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is 
 thusly:

 There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation
 happens to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain values
 assigned to its variables) maps its variables to states of the time
 evolution of the wave function of our universe.  You might say that we
 (literally not figuratively) live within such an equation.  That its 
 truth
 reifies what we call matter.

 But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.
 e.g. because the following statement is *true* "two has a
 successor" then there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any 
 previous
 number.  Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the
 existence of a factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.

 Jason




>
> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its
> concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from
> sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another 
> judgment, its
> truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, 
> pure
> mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
> causality)
> of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has 
> transcendental
> truth."
> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]
>
>
 I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning
 the integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all that 
 we
 see around us.

 Jason

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth
>>> and *linguistic* (from language) truth.
>>>
>>> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ ]
>>>
>>> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory (RTT)
>>> , functional type theory (FTT) languages.
>>>
>>> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic objects
>>> of Peano arithmetic (PA).
>>>
>>> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry
>>> Field, refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).
>>>
>>>
>> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than
>> assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.
>>
>
> Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs
> additional postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is derivable
> from arithmetic. AG
>
>>
>>
 The above statement is false.

 With arithmetic alone (even peano arithmetic) you get the emulations of
 all possible programs.  Under the current leading theory of consciousness
 by those who study the problem, that computation yields every possible
 conscious state, including that of your own, in this moment right now,
 believing yourself to be in a universe ruled by quantum mechanics.

 The appearance of a multiverse is itself a direct consequence of every
 possibility being realized by every program execution.

>>>
>>> *So every possible program executes or has executed, giving rise to (the
>>> illusion of) matter? But how does a program execute in the absence of
>>> matter, which seems to be what you're demanding?  AG*
>>>


>> Do you agree that "7 is prime" is true, even without a computer executing
>> it or proving it?
>>
>> If so, then do you agree that for po

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 8:36 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *Since 529.Metaphysics has been done with the scientific attitude before.
> It is not easy to come back to this because in this filed, since 529 we
> have been brainswahedq by fairy tales, *
>

And the scientific knowledge that existed in 529 AD was about the same as
the the scientific knowledge that existed in 529 BC, so apparently doing
metaphysics with any sort of attitude is a waste of time.

> *When we do it with the scientific method, we get experimental means to
> verify it.*
>

You can't experiment with invisible factors and an experiment that produces
invisible results verifies nothing.  This is even true for thought
experiments, a good thought experiment could in theory actually be
performed and only monetary or technological limitations prevent you from
doing so, but the thing you call a thought experiment could never be
performed regardless of how much money you had or your level of technology
because as described it is full of logical self contradictions. And as a
result it is a recipe for self delusion, and the easiest person to fool is
yourself.

> *conception of reality before Aristotle* [...]
>

Why should I give a tinker's damn about the conception of reality before
Aristotle?


> *> You talk like if the consciousness problem was solved.*
>

I talk like there is no point in worrying about consciousness until you've
first solved the problem of intelligence, and that is something you never
talk about. Why? Because coming up with a intelligence theory, even a
mediocre one, is incredibly hard. But coming up with a consciousness theory
is incredibly easy, any theory will work just fine because there are no
facts the theory must fit.


> > *I am OK that consciousness is easier than intelligence to solve,*
>

I know you are. A good theory must fit the facts. There are no known facts
about consciousness. Your theory fits all known facts about consciousness.
Therefore your theory is a good theory about consciousness, just like every
other theory about consciousness.

>* t**o come back to the pre-aristotelian conception of reality* [...]
>

No, let's not come back to that. Is it physically possible for you to stop
yammering for 2 seconds about a group of people who knew less science than
a bright fourth grader and less mathematics than a bright eighth grader?


> > *you invoke the Aristotelian religion** that* [...]
>

Apparently the answer is no.


> >  *we don’t discuss mathematics here.*
>

We don't discuss mathematics on the EVERYTHING list?

*> Of course Archimedes was a great guy, no doubt, but he was not an expert
> in metaphysics and theology.*
>

And one of the reasons Archimedes was a great guy, the greatest of all the
ancient Greeks and the one that has best survived the test of time, is
because he didn't waste his time with metaphysics or theology.


> >> Two can play this game, I have invisible evidence it [ a halting
>> problem solver] does exist.
>
>
> *> Then explain them. *
>

There are no results to explain because my universal halting problem solver
is invisible as are all the answers to the problems it's asked, just like
your invisible Turing Machine except mine is better. My invisible machine
can solve the Halting Problem but your invisible machine can't.


> *> Plato was skeptical on* [...]
>

And little Joey Smith in the fourth grade who just got a B+ on his science
test is skeptical about some stuff too. I can't think of any reason I
should be more interested in Plato's skepticism than the skepticism of
little Joey Smith.

> *The idea that visibility is evidence is exactly the Aristotelian
> theology,*
>

There is another name for the idea that evidence must be visible, it's
called "The Scientific Method".  And I don't know what the word "theology"
means in Brunospeak.


> > i*n christianity through St-Thomas* [...]
>

And I care even less about what Christianity through St.Thomas thought
about things than I do for the goddamn ancient Greeks.


> > to denote Aristotle’s notion of [...]
>

I have a good idea, let's not note or denote Aristotle’s notion of anything.

*>> *Godel said: *“ [Turing] has for the first time succeeded in giving an
>> absolute definition of an interesting epistemological notion, i.e., one not
>> depending on the formalism chosen.” -Godel, Princeton Bicentennial, [1946,
>> p. 84]*
>> Please note the words "not depending on the formalism chosen", Godel
>> thought Turing didn't just prove something about symbols but proved
>> something about the real physical world.
>
>
> *> Nor did Turing. The independence of the formalism means here that you
> can take arithmetic, or fortran, or lisp, or lambda calculus, etc. *
>

Look up the word formalism in Google and the first definition is "*excessive
adherence to prescribed forms*". The second definition is "*a description
of something in formal mathematical or logical terms*".  Please note the
use of the word "description". Mathematics is the best *language

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/10/2018 7:37 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Monday, December 10, 2018, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/9/2018 6:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 PM Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

They are fundamental only in the sense that one can use them
as axioms.  So their fundamentalism is circular.

Brent

On 12/9/2018 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than
this.  e.g. because the following statement is */true/* "two
has a successor" then there exists a successor to 2 distinct
from any previous number. Similarly, the */truth/* of "9 is
not prime" implies the existence of a factor of 9 besides 1
and 9.



That position was defensible before Godel, but not after.  He
showed mathematical truth cannot be based on axioms.


But he didn't show it could be based on something else.



 We're talking about primary substances/foundations of reality. Those 
things, that by their definition of being primary objects, are not 
based on anything else.


That neither he, nor anyone else showed mathematical truth is or can 
be based on something else would be expected if it is a primary object.


That's like saying "Sherlock Holmes companion is named Watson." is a 
primary truth because it isn't derived from something else.


Brent

--
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: What is more primary than numbers?

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 11:00:17 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 9 Dec 2018, at 21:02, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:


 I think truth is primitive.

 Jason

>>>
>>>
>>> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and *matter* are 
>>> linked:
>>>
>>> "As a matter of fact, ..."
>>> "The truth of the matter is ..."
>>> "It matters that ..."
>>> ...
>>> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]
>>>
>>
>> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps removed from 
>> truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is thusly:
>>
>> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation happens to 
>> be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain values assigned to its 
>> variables) maps its variables to states of the time evolution of the wave 
>> function of our universe.  You might say that we (literally not 
>> figuratively) live within such an equation.  That its truth reifies what we 
>> call matter.
>>
>> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  e.g. 
>> because the following statement is *true* "two has a successor" then 
>> there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any previous number.  
>> Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the existence of a 
>> factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its concepts 
>>> are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from sensations. If a 
>>> judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, its truth is called 
>>> logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, pure mathematics or pure 
>>> science, is based on the forms (space, time, causality) of intuitive, 
>>> empirical knowledge, then the judgment has transcendental truth."
>>> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]
>>>
>>>
>> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning the 
>> integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all that we see 
>> around us.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
>
>
> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth and 
> *linguistic* (from language) truth.
>
>
> Linguistic is concerned with grammar. To have a notion of truth, you need 
> a notion of reality, or semantic, or model (in the logician’s sense). 
>
>
>
>
> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ ] 
>
> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory (RTT) , 
> functional type theory (FTT) languages.
>
> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic objects of 
> Peano arithmetic (PA).
>
>
> “Fictional” is a bad adjective as it enforces the choice of the ontology. 
> I understand that you believe in matter as a base. I can only wait for your 
> solution of the mind-body problem, but usually non-mechanist theories have 
> a tradition of being unclear (to say the least).
>
>
>
>
>
> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry Field, 
> refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).
>
>
>
> Please do it. That could be a good subject of Phd thesis in philosophy, 
> but I am not sure you have understand the main things about universal 
> machine, which is that we don’t understand them at all, we are just 
> discovering them. It put some mess in the arithmetical Platonia.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>


Language theory (both natural and programming) includes syntax, semantics, 
pragmatics. 

The nominalization of scientific theories expressed in mathematical 
language began with Field.

"Science Without Numbers" 
https://books.google.com/books/about/Science_Without_Numbers.html?id=Exc1DQAAQBAJ

"Progress in Field’s Nominalistic Program"
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13083/1/Chen_Intrinsic_Nom_QM.pdf

*In this paper, I introduce an intrinsic account of the quantum state. This 
account contains three desirable features that the standard platonistic 
account lacks: (1) it does not refer to any abstract mathematical objects 
such as complex numbers, (2) it is independent of the usual arbitrary 
conventions in the wave function representation, and (3) it explains why 
the quantum state has its amplitude and phase degrees of freedom.*


*Consequently, this account extends Hartry Field’s program outlined in 
Science Without Numbers (1980), responds to David Malament’s long-standing 
impossibility conjecture (1982), and establishes an important first step 
towards a genuinely intrinsic and nominalistic account of quantum 
mechanics.*


One way to nominalize (mathematical) theories expressed in first-order 
languages is via the finitization of Jan Mycielski.

- pt


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and st

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:59:57 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018,  wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift  
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
>
> I think truth is primitive.
>
> Jason
>


 As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and *matter* 
 are linked:

 "As a matter of fact, ..."
 "The truth of the matter is ..."
 "It matters that ..."
 ...
 [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]

>>>
>>> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps removed 
>>> from truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is 
>>> thusly:
>>>
>>> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation 
>>> happens to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain values 
>>> assigned to its variables) maps its variables to states of the time 
>>> evolution of the wave function of our universe.  You might say that we 
>>> (literally not figuratively) live within such an equation.  That its 
>>> truth 
>>> reifies what we call matter.
>>>
>>> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  
>>> e.g. because the following statement is *true* "two has a 
>>> successor" then there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any 
>>> previous 
>>> number.  Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the 
>>> existence of a factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>

 Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its 
 concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from 
 sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, 
 its 
 truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, 
 pure 
 mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
 causality) 
 of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has 
 transcendental 
 truth."
 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]


>>> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning the 
>>> integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all that we 
>>> see 
>>> around us.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth 
>> and *linguistic* (from language) truth.
>>
>> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ ] 
>>
>> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory (RTT) 
>> , functional type theory (FTT) languages.
>>
>> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic objects 
>> of Peano arithmetic (PA).
>>
>> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry 
>> Field, refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).
>>
>>
> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than 
> assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.
>

 Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs 
 additional postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is derivable 
 from arithmetic. AG 

>
>
>>> The above statement is false.
>>>
>>> With arithmetic alone (even peano arithmetic) you get the emulations of 
>>> all possible programs.  Under the current leading theory of consciousness 
>>> by those who study the problem, that computation yields every possible 
>>> conscious state, including that of your own, in this moment right now, 
>>> believing yourself to be in a universe ruled by quantum mechanics.
>>>
>>> The appearance of a multiverse is itself a direct consequence of every 
>>> possibility being realized by every program execution.
>>>
>>
>> *So every possible program executes or has executed, giving rise to (the 
>> illusion of) matter? But how does a program execute in the absence of 
>> matter, which seems to be what you're demanding?  AG*
>>
>>>
>>>
> Do you agree that "7 is prime" is true, even without a computer executing 
> it or proving it?
>
> If so, then do you agree that for positive integers k and x, that "(k*k - 
> k*x - x*x)^2 - 1 = 0" is true only when x is a Fibonacci number, and k is 
> the preceding Fibonacci number

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:



 On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:


 I think truth is primitive.

 Jason

>>>
>>>
>>> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and *matter*
>>> are linked:
>>>
>>> "As a matter of fact, ..."
>>> "The truth of the matter is ..."
>>> "It matters that ..."
>>> ...
>>> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]
>>>
>>
>> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps removed
>> from truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is 
>> thusly:
>>
>> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation happens
>> to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain values assigned
>> to its variables) maps its variables to states of the time evolution of 
>> the
>> wave function of our universe.  You might say that we (literally not
>> figuratively) live within such an equation.  That its truth reifies what 
>> we
>> call matter.
>>
>> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.
>> e.g. because the following statement is *true* "two has a successor"
>> then there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any previous number.
>> Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the existence of
>> a factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its
>>> concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from
>>> sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, 
>>> its
>>> truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, pure
>>> mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
>>> causality)
>>> of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has transcendental
>>> truth."
>>> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]
>>>
>>>
>> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning the
>> integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all that we see
>> around us.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
>
>
> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth and
> *linguistic* (from language) truth.
>
> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ ]
>
> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory (RTT) ,
> functional type theory (FTT) languages.
>
> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic objects
> of Peano arithmetic (PA).
>
> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry Field,
> refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).
>
>
 Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than
 assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.

>>>
>>> Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs additional
>>> postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is derivable from
>>> arithmetic. AG
>>>


>> The above statement is false.
>>
>> With arithmetic alone (even peano arithmetic) you get the emulations of
>> all possible programs.  Under the current leading theory of consciousness
>> by those who study the problem, that computation yields every possible
>> conscious state, including that of your own, in this moment right now,
>> believing yourself to be in a universe ruled by quantum mechanics.
>>
>> The appearance of a multiverse is itself a direct consequence of every
>> possibility being realized by every program execution.
>>
>
> *So every possible program executes or has executed, giving rise to (the
> illusion of) matter? But how does a program execute in the absence of
> matter, which seems to be what you're demanding?  AG*
>
>>
>>
Do you agree that "7 is prime" is true, even without a computer executing
it or proving it?

If so, then do you agree that for positive integers k and x, that "(k*k -
k*x - x*x)^2 - 1 = 0" is true only when x is a Fibonacci number, and k is
the preceding Fibonacci number or 0?

Do you further agree that the above statement remains true, regardless of
whether or not a physical computer enumerates every possible k and x value
and checking the equation?

Then you have a case where mathematical truth, the truth of that equation,
enumerates all the Fibonacci numbers

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:48:28 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018, > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>


 On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think truth is primitive.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>>
>> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and *matter* 
>> are linked:
>>
>> "As a matter of fact, ..."
>> "The truth of the matter is ..."
>> "It matters that ..."
>> ...
>> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]
>>
>
> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps removed 
> from truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is 
> thusly:
>
> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation happens 
> to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain values assigned 
> to its variables) maps its variables to states of the time evolution of 
> the 
> wave function of our universe.  You might say that we (literally not 
> figuratively) live within such an equation.  That its truth reifies what 
> we 
> call matter.
>
> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  e.g. 
> because the following statement is *true* "two has a successor" then 
> there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any previous number.  
> Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the existence of a 
> factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.
>
> Jason
>
>
>  
>
>>
>> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its 
>> concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from 
>> sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, 
>> its 
>> truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, pure 
>> mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
>> causality) 
>> of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has transcendental 
>> truth."
>> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]
>>
>>
> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning the 
> integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all that we see 
> around us.
>
> Jason
>



 In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth and 
 *linguistic* (from language) truth.

 [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ ] 

 Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory (RTT) , 
 functional type theory (FTT) languages.

 Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic objects of 
 Peano arithmetic (PA).

 Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry Field, 
 refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).


>>> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than 
>>> assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.
>>>
>>
>> Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs additional 
>> postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is derivable from 
>> arithmetic. AG 
>>
>>>
>>>
> The above statement is false.
>
> With arithmetic alone (even peano arithmetic) you get the emulations of 
> all possible programs.  Under the current leading theory of consciousness 
> by those who study the problem, that computation yields every possible 
> conscious state, including that of your own, in this moment right now, 
> believing yourself to be in a universe ruled by quantum mechanics.
>
> The appearance of a multiverse is itself a direct consequence of every 
> possibility being realized by every program execution.
>

*So every possible program executes or has executed, giving rise to (the 
illusion of) matter? But how does a program execute in the absence of 
matter, which seems to be what you're demanding?  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 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: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Dec 2018, at 08:38, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 8:43:59 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> I think truth is primitive.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  truth and matter are linked:
> 
> "As a matter of fact, ..."
> "The truth of the matter is ..."
> "It matters that ..."
> ...
> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter 
>  ]
> 
> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps removed from 
> truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is thusly:
> 
> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation happens to be 
> true, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain values assigned to its variables) 
> maps its variables to states of the time evolution of the wave function of 
> our universe.  You might say that we (literally not figuratively) live within 
> such an equation.  That its truth reifies what we call matter.
> 
> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  e.g. 
> because the following statement is true "two has a successor" then there 
> exists a successor to 2 distinct from any previous number.  Similarly, the 
> truth of "9 is not prime" implies the existence of a factor of 9 besides 1 
> and 9.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has material truth if its concepts are 
> based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from sensations. If a 
> judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, its truth is called 
> logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, pure mathematics or pure 
> science, is based on the forms (space, time, causality) of intuitive, 
> empirical knowledge, then the judgment has transcendental truth."
> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth  ]
> 
> 
> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning the integers 
> is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all that we see around us.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
> In my view there is basically just material (from matter) truth and 
> linguistic (from language) truth.
> 
> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ 
>  ] 
> 
> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory (RTT) , 
> functional type theory (FTT) languages.
> 
> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic objects of Peano 
> arithmetic (PA).
> 
> Numbers can be "materialized" via nominalization (cf. Hartry Field, refs. in 
> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field 
>  ]).
> 
> 
> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than assuming 
> the primacy of arithmetical truth.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
> In today's era of mathematics, Joel David Hamkins (@JDHamkins 
> ) has shown there is a "multiverse" of truths:
> 
> The set-theoretic multiverse
> [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223 ]
> 
> The multiverse view in set theory, introduced and argued for in this article, 
> is the view that there are many distinct concepts of set, each instantiated 
> in a corresponding set-theoretic universe. The universe view, in contrast, 
> asserts that there is an absolute background set concept, with a 
> corresponding absolute set-theoretic universe in which every set-theoretic 
> question has a definite answer. The multiverse position, I argue, explains 
> our experience with the enormous diversity of set-theoretic possibilities, a 
> phenomenon that challenges the universe view. In particular, I argue that the 
> continuum hypothesis is settled on the multiverse view by our extensive 
> knowledge about how it behaves in the multiverse, and as a result it can no 
> longer be settled in the manner formerly hoped for.
> 
> 
> What this means is that for mathematics (a language category), truth depends 
> on the language.


Then in my language “truth depends on the language” is false.

But it is not in my language, it is in my understanding of the word involve. I 
can understand that the taste of coffee depends on the country in which I drink 
the coffee, but I doubt the language has any role there, although its structure 
might be correlated by common causes.

I would say that truth, and even mind, are independent of the languages and 
theories. Theories are only mind-tool to explore truth and mind, and guess it 
is bigger than us, and contains elements above theories and even above 
language, like truth for PA, which is not definable by PA.

Now, set theory is nice for the phenomenology, but far to big for the ontology. 
The axiom of infinity does not make 

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Dec 2018, at 07:53, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/9/2018 6:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 PM Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>> They are fundamental only in the sense that one can use them as axioms.  So 
>> their fundamentalism is circular.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> On 12/9/2018 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  e.g. 
>>> because the following statement is true "two has a successor" then there 
>>> exists a successor to 2 distinct from any previous number.  Similarly, the 
>>> truth of "9 is not prime" implies the existence of a factor of 9 besides 1 
>>> and 9.
>> 
>> 
>> That position was defensible before Godel, but not after.  He showed 
>> mathematical truth cannot be based on axioms.
> 
> But he didn't show it could be based on something else.

Actually he did not but he provided the beginning of this. With the work of 
Skolem, Tarski, Mostowski, Robinson, it has been clear that Robinson Arithmetic 
is the least finitely axiomatizable Turing universal theory of numbers, and 
that without number or Turing equivalent, you cannot get them. Eliminate just 
one axiom, and you get an incomplete but complete-able theory. But RA is 
essentially undecidable, you cannot retract one axiom without losing Turing 
Universality, and you cannot get a finite or recursively enumerable addition of 
axioms to get the all of the arithmetical reality.

Now Gödel was indeed quite open to the idea that Naturalism is wrong. Too bad 
he missed CT and also Mechanism, although he was not entirely close to it 
either. 

Arithmetic provides all you need to explain that With less than Arithmetic, you 
loss Turing Universality, and with more, you can only scratch the surface of 
the reality/truth of the universal machine.


Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> 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: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Dec 2018, at 21:02, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
> 
> I think truth is primitive.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  truth and matter are linked:
> 
> "As a matter of fact, ..."
> "The truth of the matter is ..."
> "It matters that ..."
> ...
> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter 
>  ]
> 
> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps removed from 
> truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is thusly:
> 
> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation happens to be 
> true, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain values assigned to its variables) 
> maps its variables to states of the time evolution of the wave function of 
> our universe.  You might say that we (literally not figuratively) live within 
> such an equation.  That its truth reifies what we call matter.
> 
> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  e.g. 
> because the following statement is true "two has a successor" then there 
> exists a successor to 2 distinct from any previous number.  Similarly, the 
> truth of "9 is not prime" implies the existence of a factor of 9 besides 1 
> and 9.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has material truth if its concepts are 
> based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from sensations. If a 
> judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, its truth is called 
> logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, pure mathematics or pure 
> science, is based on the forms (space, time, causality) of intuitive, 
> empirical knowledge, then the judgment has transcendental truth."
> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth  ]
> 
> 
> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning the integers 
> is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all that we see around us.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
> In my view there is basically just material (from matter) truth and 
> linguistic (from language) truth.

Linguistic is concerned with grammar. To have a notion of truth, you need a 
notion of reality, or semantic, or model (in the logician’s sense). 



> 
> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ ] 
> 
> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory (RTT) , 
> functional type theory (FTT) languages.
> 
> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic objects of Peano 
> arithmetic (PA).

“Fictional” is a bad adjective as it enforces the choice of the ontology. I 
understand that you believe in matter as a base. I can only wait for your 
solution of the mind-body problem, but usually non-mechanist theories have a 
tradition of being unclear (to say the least).




> 
> Numbers can be "materialized" via nominalization (cf. Hartry Field, refs. in 
> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).


Please do it. That could be a good subject of Phd thesis in philosophy, but I 
am not sure you have understand the main things about universal machine, which 
is that we don’t understand them at all, we are just discovering them. It put 
some mess in the arithmetical Platonia.

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: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Dec 2018, at 11:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> What is more primary than numbers?
> 
> 1. Numbers come from counting.

The human belief in numbers comes from counting. 



> But one counts things (things that are not numbers themselves, in the 
> primitive case). So the things one counts + the one that counts must be more 
> primary than numbers. 

Anything more primary than a universal machinery is any other universal 
machinery. Once you have one of them, you have the emulation of all the others.

One you choose one, you get a universal machinery phi_i, and you can identify 
the ith machine with the number i.

I start for three of them, just to illustrate that the theology, including the 
physics, is independent of the choice for the initial base. It is also, thanks 
to the primary school, easier to conceive that 444 is a composite number, 
independent of you and me, than to believe the KKK = K independently of you and 
me (despite this means mainly that the first argument projection of (K, K) is 
K).



> 
> 2. Numbers come from lambda calculus (LC). But LC - a programming language - 
> needs a machine LCM to interpret LC programs. So LC + LCM is more primary 
> than numbers.

All universal machinery contain a universal machine, running all machines on 
all inputs in virtue of number relations, or of you favorite Turing universal 
ontology.

If you don’t assume the numbers or the words, you can’t get it at all.

With mechanism, you cannot assume more, in the ontology, not even the induction 
axioms. But we will define the observer by the machine which believes in the 
induction axiom and in some (Turing complete) ontology. We can prove their 
existence without using the induction axioms.

With mechanism, the TOE (which unifies all laws from the Weak Force to love and 
hate)) is any first order logical specification of any Turing universal realm. 
This assumes very few things, beside the “yes doctor” act of faith. And that 
truth is somehow extracted from the “head” of any universal machine or number.

The TOE is the universal machine and/or its theology (obtained internally and 
externally to arithmetic, using a slightly stronger theory, or transfinitely 
many, as the phenomenology is unbounded and unbound-able. 

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: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Monday, December 10, 2018,  wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:



 On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think truth is primitive.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
>
> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and *matter*
> are linked:
>
> "As a matter of fact, ..."
> "The truth of the matter is ..."
> "It matters that ..."
> ...
> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]
>

 I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps removed from
 truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is thusly:

 There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation happens
 to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain values assigned to
 its variables) maps its variables to states of the time evolution of the
 wave function of our universe.  You might say that we (literally not
 figuratively) live within such an equation.  That its truth reifies what we
 call matter.

 But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  e.g.
 because the following statement is *true* "two has a successor" then
 there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any previous number.
 Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the existence of a
 factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.

 Jason




>
> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its
> concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from
> sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, its
> truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, pure
> mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
> causality)
> of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has transcendental
> truth."
> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]
>
>
 I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning the
 integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all that we see
 around us.

 Jason

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth and
>>> *linguistic* (from language) truth.
>>>
>>> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ ]
>>>
>>> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory (RTT) ,
>>> functional type theory (FTT) languages.
>>>
>>> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic objects of
>>> Peano arithmetic (PA).
>>>
>>> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry Field,
>>> refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).
>>>
>>>
>> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than
>> assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.
>>
>
> Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs additional
> postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is derivable from
> arithmetic. AG
>
>>
>>
The above statement is false.

With arithmetic alone (even peano arithmetic) you get the emulations of all
possible programs.  Under the current leading theory of consciousness by
those who study the problem, that computation yields every possible
conscious state, including that of your own, in this moment right now,
believing yourself to be in a universe ruled by quantum mechanics.

The appearance of a multiverse is itself a direct consequence of every
possibility being realized by every program execution.

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 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: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Monday, December 10, 2018, Philip Thrift  wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 8:43:59 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:



 On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think truth is primitive.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
>
> As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and *matter*
> are linked:
>
> "As a matter of fact, ..."
> "The truth of the matter is ..."
> "It matters that ..."
> ...
> [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]
>

 I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps removed from
 truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is thusly:

 There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation happens
 to be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain values assigned to
 its variables) maps its variables to states of the time evolution of the
 wave function of our universe.  You might say that we (literally not
 figuratively) live within such an equation.  That its truth reifies what we
 call matter.

 But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  e.g.
 because the following statement is *true* "two has a successor" then
 there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any previous number.
 Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the existence of a
 factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.

 Jason




>
> Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its
> concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from
> sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, its
> truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, pure
> mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, 
> causality)
> of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has transcendental
> truth."
> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]
>
>
 I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning the
 integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all that we see
 around us.

 Jason

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth and
>>> *linguistic* (from language) truth.
>>>
>>> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ ]
>>>
>>> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory (RTT) ,
>>> functional type theory (FTT) languages.
>>>
>>> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic objects of
>>> Peano arithmetic (PA).
>>>
>>> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry Field,
>>> refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).
>>>
>>>
>> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than
>> assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
>
>
> In today's era of mathematics, Joel David Hamkins (@JDHamkins
> ) has shown there is a "multiverse" of
> truths:
>
> *The set-theoretic multiverse*
> [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4223 ]
>
>
> *The multiverse view in set theory, introduced and argued for in this
> article, is the view that there are many distinct concepts of set, each
> instantiated in a corresponding set-theoretic universe. The universe view,
> in contrast, asserts that there is an absolute background set concept, with
> a corresponding absolute set-theoretic universe in which every
> set-theoretic question has a definite answer. The multiverse position, I
> argue, explains our experience with the enormous diversity of set-theoretic
> possibilities, a phenomenon that challenges the universe view. In
> particular, I argue that the continuum hypothesis is settled on the
> multiverse view by our extensive knowledge about how it behaves in the
> multiverse, and as a result it can no longer be settled in the manner
> formerly hoped for.*
>
>
> What this means is that for mathematics (a language category), truth
> depends on the language.
>

With sets things are less clear as people argue over what sets are and what
axioms are appropriate to define a world of sets.  But one doesn't need a
system of sets to get the universe, the integers and their multiplicative
and additive relations are enough.

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 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

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Jason Resch]

On Monday, December 10, 2018, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/9/2018 6:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> They are fundamental only in the sense that one can use them as axioms.
>> So their fundamentalism is circular.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 12/9/2018 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  e.g.
>> because the following statement is *true* "two has a successor" then
>> there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any previous number.
>> Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the existence of a
>> factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.
>>
>>
>>
> That position was defensible before Godel, but not after.  He showed
> mathematical truth cannot be based on axioms.
>
>
> But he didn't show it could be based on something else.
>
>
>
 We're talking about primary substances/foundations of reality. Those
things, that by their definition of being primary objects, are not based on
anything else.

That neither he, nor anyone else showed mathematical truth is or can be
based on something else would be expected if it is a primary object.

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 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: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:43:59 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:02 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:36:39 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>


 On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:27:45 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
>
> I think truth is primitive.
>
> Jason
>


 As a matter of linguistics (and philosophy),  *truth* and *matter* are 
 linked:

 "As a matter of fact, ..."
 "The truth of the matter is ..."
 "It matters that ..."
 ...
 [ https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter ]

>>>
>>> I agree they are linked.  Though matter may be a few steps removed from 
>>> truth.  Perhaps one way to interpret the link more directly is thusly:
>>>
>>> There is an equation whose every solution (where the equation happens to 
>>> be *true*, e.g. is satisfied when it has certain values assigned to its 
>>> variables) maps its variables to states of the time evolution of the wave 
>>> function of our universe.  You might say that we (literally not 
>>> figuratively) live within such an equation.  That its truth reifies what we 
>>> call matter.
>>>
>>> But I think truth plays an even more fundamental roll than this.  e.g. 
>>> because the following statement is *true* "two has a successor" then 
>>> there exists a successor to 2 distinct from any previous number.  
>>> Similarly, the *truth* of "9 is not prime" implies the existence of a 
>>> factor of 9 besides 1 and 9.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>

 Schopenhauer 's view: "A judgment has *material truth* if its concepts 
 are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from sensations. If 
 a 
 judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, its truth is called 
 logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, pure mathematics or 
 pure 
 science, is based on the forms (space, time, causality) of intuitive, 
 empirical knowledge, then the judgment has transcendental truth."
 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ]


>>> I guess I am referring to transcend truth here. Truth concerning the 
>>> integers is sufficient to yield the universe, matter, and all that we see 
>>> around us.
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In my view there is basically just *material* (from matter) truth and 
>> *linguistic* (from language) truth.
>>
>> [ https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/to-tell-the-truth/ ] 
>>
>> Relations and functions are linguistic: relational type theory (RTT) , 
>> functional type theory (FTT) languages.
>>
>> Numbers are also linguistic beings, the (fictional) semantic objects of 
>> Peano arithmetic (PA).
>>
>> Numbers can be "materialized" via *nominalization *(cf. Hartry Field, 
>> refs. in [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartry_Field ]).
>>
>>
> Assuming the primacy of matter assumes more and explains less, than 
> assuming the primacy of arithmetical truth.
>

Since one cannot derive QM from arithmetic alone -- one needs additional 
postulates -- it's a fallacy to think everything is derivable from 
arithmetic. 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 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.