[ExI] What is "Elemental Redness"?

[Brent Allsop]

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 9:57 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 3, 2023, 11:17 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> To me "information" doesn't belong with Space/Time and Matter/Energy.  In
>> the "Why the laws are mathematical" section of that paper it says:
>>
>> "It has long been recognized that mathematics is “*unreasonably
>> effective
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences>*”
>> in describing the physical laws. In 1623, Galileo
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei> wrote
>> <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei>, “[The universe] is
>> written in the language of mathematics.”"
>>
>> I'm in the camp which believes it isn't "unreasonably effective" at all.
>>
>
> Why is that?
>

It's probably I just desire it to be so, like all the Mormon people I judge
so terribly.  The "Anthropic principle" and all those ideas that physics
are specifically designed for us, just seem irrelevant to me.  I should
probably give it more consideration, but find it hard to motivate myself to
do so.



>   Mathematics is simply platonic, necessarily true logic, which must be
>> true in all possible physical worlds.
>>
>
> If you believe in platonic existence, does that belief extend to
> mathematical objects that are indistinguishable from our physical universe?
>
> And in that case, wouldn't "physical existence" become redundant, given
> that "mathematical existence" already includes all possible physical
> universes?
>
>
>   But mathematics needs something physical to represent, reason about, and
>> discover it, otherwise it is nothing.
>>
>
> This a rejection of platonism then. I am a bit confused about what your
> position is. Let's simplify it:
>

I'm probably using the wrong term, then.  I see this in Wikipedia:

"Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects —
where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time
and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental. Platonism in
this sense is a contemporary view."

Which seems OK, except for the "there exists such things.."  seems too
strong for me, as none of this exists, it is just all facts that are
necessarily true.

Do you believe the truth that 2+2=4 exists independently of the existence
> of a physical universe or mathematicians who believe it or prove it?
>

This kind of stuff is just logically, necessarily true and discoverable, in
all possible physical universes.


> If you do, this is enough to prove constructively how mathematical truth
> leads to conscious observers who will believe themselves to inhabit
> physical universes, governed by simple probabilistic laws which evolve in
> time.
>

Watching your videos, and reading more of your work is on my list of things
to do.  Perhaps it will help me understand, and be more open to this kind
of stuff.  But I"m currently doubting it makes me believe that anything
like this could happen, without a physical universe making such
discovery of 2+2=4 trueths possible.




>   I know there seems to be a lot of people that desperately seem to want
>> to make mathematics more fundamental, but this seems biased and
>> non-scientific to me,
>>
>
> Some could make that claim, but that was before others showed it is a
> theory that leads to testable predictions, all of which have been confirmed
> thus far.
>
> similar to the way all my Mormon friends and family desperately want to
>> believe there are disembodied ghosts and other substance dualistic
>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/48-Substance-Dualism>
>> ideas.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be great if we could get these great ideas of yours in these
>> great papers canonized, where they can constantly progress, and we can
>> build and track consensus around the best ideas we all agree on (which
>> would be most of what you have in this paper) but this idea of
>> information belongs with the other two, where we disagree, could be pushed
>> down to supporting sub camps, and we could see how many people believe one
>> way, vs the other, and why.  Wouldn't it be great to track this kind of
>> always improving concisely stated consensus, over time?
>>
>> How pervasive is this belief that the universe could be purely
>> mathematical?  Is this belief growing or decreasing in popularity?  What is
>> causing this?
>>
>
> It depends who you ask. Many scientists probably never think about it.
> Platonism is a majority opinion among mathematicians. I think many
> theoretical physicists, especially string theorists, are amenable to the
> idea. I think it is growing in popularity but it's still a pretty early in
> it's development and few in the field are even aware of it at this time.
> Tegmark has probably done the most to popularize the idea.
>

I trust you, so I almost believe your claim that Platonism is a majority
opinion.  But it'd sure be nice to be able to rigorously track this kind of
stuff, who does believe it (is it ONLY mathematicians?) and how is this
changing over time, and why...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230503/3738ebc7/attachment.htm>