On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 7:23 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think you need to indicate how, out of the set of all computations, >> you can pick the correct ones from the incorrect ones without the help of >> matter that obeys the laws of physics. >> > > *> How do you suppose the laws of physics pick out the correct physical > outcomes from among all possibilities? * > You don't have to explain why a phenomena works the way it does to prove it does in fact work that way. I don't need to explain how physical law gained the ability to tell the difference between things that work and things that don't because I have concrete (pun intended) proof that it does in fact have that ability. If physical law says a bridge will not collapse under a given load then it won't collapse, if it says it will then you'd better not go on that bridge. That's why bridge engineers study physics and not p-adic arithmetic. > > *You presume there is a physical world governed by physical laws.* > Yes. > > *But you deny an arithmetical world governed by arithmetical laws. * > I don't deny that at all, but there are a infinite number of self consistent arithmetical worlds, including the 3-adic world where 300 is smaller than 8/45 because in that world 300 is only 1/3 distance units from zero but 8/45 is 9 units. However out of that infinite number of ways distance along the number line could be measured one of them is unique, it stands out for only one reason, it is the only one that is consistent with physical law, and that is the reason we teach that one and only that one to our children, and that is the reason first graders say 2+2=4 and the reason third graders say 300 is larger than 8/45. > > *Yet, assuming an arithmetical world governed by arithmetical laws, you > can derive the appearance of a physical universe governed by physical laws.* > Baloney! There is no way somebody can start with nothing but arithmetic and derive the laws of Newton Einstein and Quantum Mechanics without also deriving a infinite number of other physical laws that do NOT conform with experimental observation. No way. >> I'm very surprised that as soon as you mentioned the Planck Time in the >> above you didn't realize you had left the world of pure dimensionless number >> s and was talking numbers with physical units associated with them, like >> measures of time and space and mass and energy and electrical charge. >> > > *> If you think physical laws are computable,* > I think physical laws can make computations, and if a clever programer has access to a physical Turing Machine he can use a few simple physical laws to predict what will happen when a huge number of those simple laws interact in astronomically complex ways. That's what a meteorologist does when he makes a computer model of a hurricane. > * > then time, space, mass, etc. can all be reduced to computation (and > computation is the manipulation of pure numbers).* > There is no way pure arithmetic can come up with the Planck Time, it can't find anything special about the number 5.39245 *10^-44 *seconds* because it is *not* a pure number, there is no way pure arithmetic can know what the hell a second is, or time in general, or space, or electrical charge, or angular momentum or... 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv30%3DEr%2B-doyvO0C3Wfh-NwqWRHRDnjaCH4arbbZ_7O77w%40mail.gmail.com.
