On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:37 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Do you have any idea why matter "obeys laws"? >> > > No I do not, I have no idea. But I do know that a chain of "why" > questions > > either comes to an end with a brute fact or it does not come to an end; > and I also know that either possibility would leave some people unsatisfied > and so I must sadly conclude that some people are just doomed to be > unsatisfied. > Well look into Bruno's theory if you want some possible answers. > > > >> Turing machines can create conscious experiences including appearances of >> physical realities, >> > > Why are you so certain that > physical realities > don't create > conscious experiences > including > Turing machines > as Mr. Alan Turing's physical brain first did in 1935? > What you propose explains less and assumes more. You assume: Physical universe -> Turing Machines -> Conscious Minds + Turing Machines that exist in math -> Unconscious zombies Whereas, we might simply assume: Turing Machines -> Conscious Minds > >> > >> including those where there is a computer screen before you, but it isn't >> likely to create an experience of your computer screen spontaneously >> outputting Wikipedia out of nothing. >> > > I know that is true but I want to know why that is true. I think it's > because physics is more fundamental. > > > Isn't statistics enough? > > >> You might as well write down the static you see on a TV and hope the >> white and black dots match the bits of wikipedia. >> > I think it's because a normal number like > Champernowne's > not only contains a Wikipedia segment it also contains lots of random > black and white dot segments, and the only way to tell one segment from the > other is to make a calculation using matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > > >>>> >> >>>> >>>> we choose to simulate those mathematical objects >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> Simulated mathematical objects? So nobody knows how much 2+ 2 is, all we >>> know is that simulated 2 plus simulated 2 is simulated 4, but real 2 plus >>> real 2 is unknown. >>> >> >> > >> We know real 2 plus real 2 is 4, because we simulated the interaction of >> mathematical objects known as the integers and discovered how operations >> like multiplication and addition work. >> > > > OK, and this simulation is being done > > by your physical brain. So physics is simulating > > mathematics and NOT mathematics > > simulating > > physics. > In this case, yes, a physical process is simulating the properties of a (relatively) abstract mathematical object. Note that the other postulated universes of the string theory landscape possess the same ontological properties as mathematical objects: we can learn about them from this universe, but only via simulation. We can't affect them, and they can't affect us, unless we choose to simulate them and extract knowledge about them in a way that affects how matter behaves or becomes organized in this universe. That we can't effect them isn't evidence that those other string theory universes don't exist, so you should not use the argument that we must be able to backup wikipedia to them for them to be real. > > >> > >> This is the source of mathematical all knowledge. >> > > OK, and this simulation is being done > > by your physical brain. So physics is simulating > > mathematics and NOT mathematics > > simulating > > physics. > > >> > >> Mathematicians, using calculators, pen & paper, computers, or their minds, >> >> > > And all of those things are made of matter that obeys the laws of > physics. > > > >> t >> >> o simulate the behavior of mathematical objects and it is through this >> simulation that they discover properties of mathematical objects that can >> only be accessed in this way. > > > So physics is simulating > > mathematics and NOT mathematics > > simulating > > physics. > > > >> From your relative position matter is necessary in order to connect the >> configuration of knowledge in your brain with the knowledge inherent in the >> platonic computations you seek to emulate. > > > If so then matter is just a mathematical subroutine and a clever > programer could hack the system and write a ocean simulation program that > would make the computer the program is running on physically wet. > If we are in a simulation that has such back doors. But simpler programs outnumber the more complex ones. > When I see that I will concede that mathematics is more fundamental than > physics. > Why not review the current evidence? > > > > > >> Do you have a better explanation for where mathematical knowledge comes >> from? >> > > Perhaps mathematics comes from a desire humans have to develop a > language that is especially good at describing the workings of physics. > It's true as you pointed out that a lot of higher very abstract > mathematics seems to have little or nothing to do with physics, but like > any language once it is developed mathematics can be used to write fiction > as well as nonfiction, perhaps a lot of it is like a mathematical Harry > Potter novel. > What do you believe is real, and why? What do you believe is unreal, and why? > > Or perhaps not, as I've said many times I'm playing devil's advocate > because people around here > seem > far too eager to accept without thinking that mathematics is the > fundamental science. > Well m > aybe it is but then again maybe it is not, it's not a slam dunk either > way. > > This is why I lean towards math is fundamental: *Math is Real* *Math is Secondary* *Physics is Real* Occam's razor applies. If mathematical objects exist, then the physical universes exists as a mathematical object. One must explain what the additional assumption of a physical universe adds or explains. This is the "aristolean" view. It fails to answer, why if there is only one or some physical universes that exist, why those are exist while other, perfectly valid (from a mathematical structure perspective) do not exist. It also has issues with the mind-body problem, and fails to offer any answer for why the universe exists at all. *Physics is Secondary* This is the "platonic" view. It answers why a universe having laws like ours has (amenable to conscious life) exists. It answers the mind-body problem, explains why we have QM-like laws, and offers hope of deriving laws of physics from pure number theory. It can explain existence as a necessity following from of the truth of certain mathematical relations. Then what is primary? Why do our thoughts exist? Why do they appear to correspond to a well-ordered structure? Where does mathematical knowledge come from? This theory offers no explanation. 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
