*Is it wrong to ask what the lattice is made of? Isn't some sort of substrate necessary for any mathematical event, whether it be a brain or a screen or a universe? And isn't that substrate sufficiently different from the math to be called physical existence?
m.a. * Kory Heath wrote > Imagine an infinite two-dimensional lattice filled with the binary > digits of PI. (Start with any cell and fill in the digits of PI in an > outwardly-expanding square spiral.) Imagine the rules of Conway's > Life. We can point to any cell in this infinite lattice, and ask, "At > time T, is this cell on or off?" For any cell at any time T, there's a > mathematical fact-of-the-matter about whether or not that cell is on > or off. > > My essential position is that these mathematical facts-of-the-matter > play the role that "physical existence" is supposed to play for > materialists. If, within that mathematical description of Conway's > Life applied to the binary digits of PI, there are patterns of bits > (i.e. patterns of mathematical facts) that describe conscious persons, > I claim that those persons are in fact conscious (and necessarily so), > because those mathematical facts are as real as anything gets. They're > "all you need" for consciousness, and they're "all you need" for what > materialists call "physical reality". We can perform acts of > computation in our world in order to view some of those mathematical > facts, but those acts of computation don't create consciousness. > > > > -- Kory > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
