On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:36 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>> No I'm not disputing that, but computational relations couldn't exist >>> without computations, and computations couldn't exist without matter that >>> obeys the laws of physics. >>> >> >> >* * >> *Why couldn't it be the other way around? e.g. that mathematical >> computations are what give us physics?* >> > > > If mathematics was more fundamental than physics then Intel would be a > ridiculously unnecessary company and would have gone bankrupt decades ago, > but physics can clearly do things that mathematics can't and so the company > is thriving > > That doesn't follow. It could be that: Number relations -> Platonic computations -> Conscious Computations -> Appearance of physical realities -> Appearance of physical entities (including abacuses, computers, and chip companies we use to explore the number relations) > > >> *In other words, why do you place physics on such firmer ground than >> mathematics? Are you certain physics is primary, and not mathematics? If >> so, I would like to know the reason for this certainty.* >> > > If neither matter nor physics existed but "1+1 =2" did then "1+1 =3" would > exist too, one of those statement is fiction and one id nonfiction but the > only difference between the 2 is the way physics treats matter, for example > 2 merged hydrogen atoms behave differently in a gravitational field than 3 > do. > Is "1", "2", and "3" have any meaning, then "1+1 ~= 3". If you think it can then you're using nonstandard defintions of "1", "3", "+", or "=". > The difference between truth and falsehood is that if you treat a > falsehood as being true the drug you're taking won't work or you car won't > start or your Turing Machine won't do what it is programmed to do, or in > other words something will end up biting you in the ass. But without > physics the consequences for being wrong would be exactly the same as the > consequences for being right, none at all. > You're delving into absurdities (asserting that 1=0) in order to avoid considering the possibility that arithmetical reality might be being more fundamental than the reality we see. You understand that we could be in a matrix type of simulation. Therefore you must also understand that we cannot use our experiences to reliability inform us of what the true/fundamental reality really is. If you accept the Church-Turing Thesis, then you know no program can ever determine what machine is executing it. If you accept multiple-realizability (which I think you do) you understand that computers can be made of anything, so long as it preserves the necessary relations. Am I wrong about any of these? 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
