On Jul 22, 3:59 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:01 AM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Things don't need to move to compute, there just need to be well defined > > > relations between the bits. > > > And every computation either stops or doens't? There seems > > to me a mismatch between timelessness and computation. > > Not at all. Consider the analogy with a universe: It either is infinitely > long in the time dimension or finite. This doesn't preclude block time.
What are computations *for*, if their results timeless exist somewhere? > > > > > > some of these bit patterns become self-reproducing, and may even > > evolve > > > > into more complex bit patterns, which are better able to reproduce > > > > themselves. Some of these bit patterns may even evolve consciousness, > > as > > > > they build brains which attempt to discern and predict future > > observations > > > > of bit patterns within the number. Let's call this function Universe. > > > > There may be bit patterns (life forms) in Universe(n) which improve > > their > > > > survival or reproductive success by correctly predicting parts of > > > > Universe(n+x). There are number relations which define such sequences > > of > > > > numbers; you cannot deny their existence without denying the Fibonacci > > > > sequence or the number line (these are just simpler instances of > > recursive > > > > relations). > > > > > I can deny that the numbers exist the way tables and do and still > > accept > > > > that certain relations are true of them; just like I can accept that > > John > > > > Watson was a friend of Sherlock Holmes. > > > > Numbers, unlike fictional characters, are co-eternal with the universe, > > > Meaning they end with the universe? Why assume that? What difference > > does it make. > > The universe doesn't end (time as something we move through) only appears to > observers. This is true with both the block universe view, and the "I exist > in some number relation" view. It is easy to see how this view arises if > you consider the example I gave earlier with a life form developing through > the successive states of a recursive function. > > > > > > > > if > > > not the cause of the universe. > > > Causation requires events. Maths is timeless. > > > > In that sense, they are just as concrete if > > > not more concrete than any physical object. Your view is like that of a > > > being who has spent its whole life in a simulated virtual environment: It > > > believes the virtual reality and items in it are "more real" than the > > actual > > > computer which implements the virtual environment. The beings only > > > justification for this belief is that he can't access that computer using > > > his senses, nor point is he able to point to it. > > > > Jason > > > I think we all have a pretty strong justification for the Real > > Reality > > theory in the shape of Occam's razor. > > As I already said, both theories consequences "math exists primarily" or > "physics exists primarily" are equally verified by observation. Nope. The things we see seem to be things, not numbers. >They are > equally scientific and make the same number of assumptions. The question > then becomes: "Is it redundant to assume a primary existence in the physical > universe, if one accepts math exists independently of the physical world?" > > Jason Before that question, you need the question: does maths exist independently. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
