On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well look into Bruno's theory if you want some possible answers. > Answers are a dime a dozen, correct answers are not. And Bruno doesn't even know what questions to ask, like, "what does the pronoun "you" refer to, or what does "free will" even mean, or does the word "God" mean anything other than a amorphous grey blob, or does a chain of "why" questions ever come to an end?". Bruno hasn't even thought it important to ask these questions much less find the answers. > > > What you propose explains less and assumes more. > Y > ou assume: > Physical universe -> Turing Machines -> Conscious Minds > > + > > Turing Machines that exist in math -> Unconscious zombies > Whereas, we might simply assume: > > Turing Machines -> Conscious Minds > You conclude with " Conscious Minds " but I do NOT assume nor do I need to conclude that a conscious mind or the physical universe exist because I know both from direct experience. >> >> 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. > And that is the one and only type of mathematical object there is any evidence for. Maybe other types exist, and maybe Harry Potter does too but there is no evidence for either. Well OK .... maybe I've overstated my case, the 2 slit experiment is some evidence that many worlds exist, and if an infinite number of them exist then Harry Potter might too . B ut even many worlds can't help with conjuring non-simulated mathematical objects into existence > > > 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, > If that were true and we can't effect them and they can't affect us then it would not be science it would be philosophy or even worse theology. But it isn't true. if strings exist (a big if) then every time you move your finger you effect the strings in your finger, and if the strings were different physics would be different and if physics were different chemistry would be different and if chemistry were different you would be different. > > > Why not review the current evidence? > If I ever run across evidence that computations can be made without the use of matter that obeys the laws of physics I make a solemn promise to review it. >> >> >> 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, > John Clark is one example. > > > and why? > I think therefore I am. And when I think differently matter changes and when matter changes I think differently. > > > What do you believe is unreal, > Harry Potter. And ideas that nobody or nothing has ever thought or ever will think, and patterns of behavior that matter will never perform. > > > and why? > Just a hunch. > > 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. Occam's razor applies. If physical objects exist, then the mathematical universes exists as a physical object. One must explain what the additional assumption of a mathematical universe adds or explains. > > It > [physics] > 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. If you think that mathematics is more fundamental than physics and if you think other physical laws have a perfectly valid mathematical structure then it is your responsibility and not mine to explain why they do not exist! The obvious explanation is that having a perfectly valid mathematical structure may be necessary for existence but it is not sufficient because physics is more fundamental than mathematics > > It answers why a universe having laws like ours has It does no such thing. > > It also has issues with the mind-body problem, The greatest mystery about the mind-body problem is figuring out what you would consider an adequate explanation. If I said X produced mind and X was mind you would protest and say that was just a tautology, and if it was not mind you would say "but X is not mind". I believe that mind-body problem fanboys forget that the chain of "why" questions either terminates with a brute fact or goes on forever. So after saying that consciousness is the way data feels like when it is being processed (by matter) there may not be anything more to be said. > > > and fails to offer any answer for why the universe exists at all. I suggest you read " A Universe from Nothing " by Lawrence M. Krauss , it doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing but it does explain the enormous progress physics has made in just the last 20 years or so in explaining why there is a lot rather than very little. Pure mathematics has made zero progress on this matter in the same time. > > 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. Do you really think Bruno has done any better at answering these problems, or any problems? > > > It > [mathematics] > answers the mind-body problem, That is news to me! So then what is the answer? > [mathematics] > explains why we have QM-like laws I can do the same thing. If mathematics is a language humans have devised to explain how the physical world works then the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics had to be the way it is or it wouldn't correctly describe the way the physical world works. And nobody would be crazy enough to come up with quantum mechanics from pure mathematics, instead experimental observation of the physical world determined what the mathematics in quantum theory should be. > > > and offers hope of deriving laws of physics from pure number theory. Hope is good, but as of September 13 2015 there is not even a hint of such a thing. John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
