The argument assumes mathematical realism. It's not much of an assumption, and it has an intuitive appeal. Do we create properties of numbers or discover them? It seems more natural to me that we discover them, but reasonable people could argue.
Asserting "there are no such things as mathematical objects" is itself an assumption. The question is, what's the price you pay by making the assumptions you must make to articulate a theory of everything? On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:08 PM <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Re: " timeless mathematical reality" > > *there are no such things as mathematical objects* > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ > cf. https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathfict/ > > @philipthrift > > On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 1:55:05 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> You should check out Bruno's Universal-Dovetailer-Argument (UDA). It >> shows that inasmuch as you believe your brain could substituted by an >> artificial one, the physical world must therefore be generated by >> computation. If so, all computation exists in a timeless mathematical >> reality, and our experience of the world is an instantiation of some >> infinite subset of that computation. It's a view of the arithmetical world >> from the inside. >> >> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 2:44 PM <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> All software that has ever run has run on computers made of materials >>> and assembled in factories. >>> >>> There is no *spiritual/heavenly realm *- as fat as I know - where >>> software is running. >>> >>> Can you show me such a place? Have you seen it? >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >>> On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 9:33:58 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>> >>>> What happened to "only brains can be conscious"? >>>> >>>> Are you familiar with virtual machines? Machines simulated in software? >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:10 AM <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The general response here is that there has never existed a program >>>>> that has executed outside a computer. And computers are made of matter. >>>>> >>>>> Now one can generalize "computer": There were things like the abacus >>>>> and slide rule, that executed "programs". Or one executes programs in the >>>>> head (so to speak). But this is the brain,. Again, matter. Or one takes >>>>> one's hand and a pencil or pen and executes a program on a piece of paper. >>>>> Again. all matter >>>>> >>>>> Now one can watch a movie (like 2001 with the HAL 9000) or read a >>>>> book of fiction where there is a program running on a some computer. But >>>>> this is a fictional story. >>>>> >>>>> One can imagine a program running on an imaginary computer, but this >>>>> imagining is all done in the brain. Matter. >>>>> >>>>> But give me an example of a program running in a "matter free" >>>>> environment: No brains, hands, pencils, computers, abacuses, slide rules, >>>>> around. >>>>> >>>>> Is it like some ghost out on its own in some immaterial realm? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> @philipthift >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 8:27:35 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> One way to get around this is to hold that consciousness is >>>>>> associated with the way information is processed. This is substrate >>>>>> independent - the fact that a brain is physical is beside the point. You >>>>>> could implement a brain in software, and insofar as the same kinds of >>>>>> information processing occur, it would be conscious in the same kind of >>>>>> way. >>>>>> >>>>>> I find this idea compelling because it makes the link between brains >>>>>> and consciousness without requiring matter, and provides a framework for >>>>>> understanding consciousnesses of other kinds of machines. All that's >>>>>> required is to assume there is something it is like for computation to >>>>>> occur. >>>>>> >>>>>> Terren >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 2:26 AM <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/2/2019 4:55 PM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:37:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2019 11:39 AM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apparently *matter* is not "reducible" to just the physics a >>>>>>>>> couple of particles. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then you're not a materialist. You think there is matter plus >>>>>>>>> something else, that everyone calls "mind", but you're going to call >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> "matter" and add it to everyone else's list of matter so you can >>>>>>>>> still call >>>>>>>>> yourself a materialist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But everything reducing to the physics of particles is thought of >>>>>>>> as *physicalism* (not materialism): >>>>>>>> *Physicalism and materialism* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Reductive physicalism >>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductive_physicalism>...is >>>>>>>> normally assumed to be incompatible with panpsychism. Materialism >>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism>, if held to be >>>>>>>> distinct from physicalism, is compatible with panpsychism insofar as >>>>>>>> mental >>>>>>>> properties >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What mental properties? intention? reflection? remembering? >>>>>>>> That's what I mean by saying attributing "experience" to matter is an >>>>>>>> unprincipled half-measure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brains are matter, just as livers, legs, trees, tables, rocks, >>>>>>> comets, planets, stars, cockroaches, galaxies, bacteria .. are matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brains produce intentions, reflections, remembrances, ... . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So (at least some) matter of the cosmos has psychical (mental) >>>>>>> properties. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The body+mind idea, the idea that mind is something separate from >>>>>>> body, is perhaps the worst idea ever invented. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @philipthrift >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>> >> -- > 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. > -- 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.
