On 10/25/2015 8:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Bruce Kellett
<bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
On 25/10/2015 6:12 pm, Pierz wrote:
It's hard to see how physics can be self-consistent without
the a priori existence of arithmetic.
Maybe it is because the self-consistency of physics is what makes
arithmetic possible.
Though admittedly that is a different point to whether or not
physics is "emulated" in arithmetic.
True. But no-one has yet emulated any physics in arithmetic. All
the we have is mathematical accounts of discovered physical laws
-- arithmetic based in physics.
I recently replied to someone on the FOAR list who expressed a similar
criticism:
Something has to "run" the math... ;) electricity or not.
Isn't this being a bit one-sided?
Physics can run itself, but objects in math cannot.
A physical universe can exist independently of anything else, but a
mathematical object cannot.
A physical computation can result in consciousness, a mathematical
computation results in nothing.
From where does such bias originate?
From experience as a physical being.
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
