On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 10:01:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 3:39 PM <agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 8:58:33 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 2:14 PM <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:11:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 8:06 PM <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:41:08 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:28 PM <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:04:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018, <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 9:28:32 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/15/2018 7:43 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 1:09 AM Brent Meeker < >>>>>>>>>>> meek...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/14/2018 7:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:43 PM Brent Meeker < >>>>>>>>>>>> meek...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you create a whole theology around not all truths are >>>>>>>>>>>>> provable. But you ignore that what is false is also provable. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Provable is >>>>>>>>>>>>> only relative to axioms. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Do you agree a Turing machine will either halt or not? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Do you agree that no finite set of axioms has the power to >>>>>>>>>>>> prove whether or not any given Turing machine will halt or not? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. What does this tell us about the relationship between truth, >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs, and axioms? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think it tells us. Does it tell us that a false >>>>>>>>>>>> axiom will not allow proof of a false proposition? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It tells us mathematical truth is objective and doesn't come >>>>>>>>>>> from axioms. Axioms are like physical theories, we can test them >>>>>>>>>>> and refute >>>>>>>>>>> them if they lead to predictions that are demonstrably false. E.g., >>>>>>>>>>> if they >>>>>>>>>>> predict a Turing machine will not halt, but it does, then we can >>>>>>>>>>> reject >>>>>>>>>>> that axiom as an incorrect theory of mathematical truth. >>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, we >>>>>>>>>>> might find axioms that allow us to prove more things than some >>>>>>>>>>> weaker set >>>>>>>>>>> of axioms, thereby building a better theory, but we have no >>>>>>>>>>> mechanical way >>>>>>>>>>> of doing this. In that way it is like doing science, and requires >>>>>>>>>>> trial and >>>>>>>>>>> error, comparing our theories with our observations, etc. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fine, except you've had to quailfy it as "mathematical truth", >>>>>>>>>>> meaning that it is relative to the axioms defining the Turning >>>>>>>>>>> machine. >>>>>>>>>>> Remember a Turing machine isn't a real device. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This seems to be the core problem with Bruno's proposal or model >>>>>>>>>> of reality; how does an imaginary device produce the illusion of >>>>>>>>>> matter >>>>>>>>>> (and space and time)? AG >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The solution us easy. Don't assume they're only imaginary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *If they're responsible for the existence of the matter and >>>>>>>> spacetime illusion, then they aren't composed of matter and don't >>>>>>>> exist in >>>>>>>> spacetime. So, the only alternative is that they exist in our >>>>>>>> imagination; >>>>>>>> hence, they're imaginary. QED. AG * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Imaginary mean exists only in imagination. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simple counter example to your proof: If this universe is a >>>>>>> simulation run on a computer by an advanced alien species, you would >>>>>>> conclude that computer and alien species is imaginary on the basis that >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> can't be located in spacetime. But clearly this computer and alien >>>>>>> civilization does not exist only in our heads, for if they didn't we >>>>>>> wouldn't have heads with which to imagine them. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *If you insist on asserting something, anything, exists, but not in >>>>>> spacetime, you have a huge burden of proof since it's impossible to >>>>>> prove >>>>>> your assertion by any empirical test. So, you're not dealing with a >>>>>> scientific hypothesis, since it can't be falsified. AG * >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> It can be falsified. I think you missed the posts I wrote in response >>>>> to John. The basic idea is this: >>>>> >>>>> Theories predict certain observations. We can check for those >>>>> observations. If we find them, the theory has passed a test. If we don't >>>>> find them we keep looking. If we find observations that contradict the >>>>> predictions of the theory, then we reject that theory and look for >>>>> something better. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *As I previously wrote, I could offer some information about the >>>> predictions of modern physics; not only what they are, and how they're >>>> tested, but how they came about. I wouldn't have refer to some paper. I >>>> haven't seen any plausibility arguments concerning predictions of >>>> arithmetic being the cause of the alleged illusion of matter and >>>> spacetime.* >>>> >>> >>> That's not surprising, as you have said numerous times, you refuse to >>> read the papers. >>> >>> >>>> * Not one such argument as far as I can recall. None of the advocates >>>> of this theory are able to offer any motivational predictions and their >>>> plausibility BASED on your Platonic arithmetic theory; not one! AG * >>>> >>> >>> It's not "my Platonic arithmetic theory" --- This is the a very popular >>> theory among mathematicians >>> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeEAvukZItOCKGXXBf38pv0OlPOxT0i8N7qPky35TqoWgwNQQ/viewanalytics> >>> >>> and also the most commonly held ideas in philosophy of mathematics among >>> professional mathematicians. >>> >> >> *Let's not split hairs. It's the theory you defend and support, but are >> unable to give any plausible arguments for its alleged predictions, such as >> the BB. * >> > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826.pdf > "11 Cosmology and Boltzmann brains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . . 41" > > >> *I would read the papers you offer if I had a sense of the theory's >> plausibility. * >> > > You want a sense of a theory's plausibility before you will look into the > it. But you can't get a sense of the plausibility until you look into it. > It is a hopeless situation. > > >> *But failing that, I am not motivated to waste my time on nonsense. AG* >> >>> >>> > I'm am beginning to feel this way too. >
*Why don't you come clean? You're a firm believer in the arithmetic theory of physical reality -- that the matter and spacetime are illusions created by the Platonic theory of numbers -- but you are absolutely unable to make a plausible argument that it predicts anything, like the BB. AG * > > 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.
