[ExI] What is "Elemental Redness"?

Thu May 4 00:02:11 UTC 2023

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 6:05 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

It's great that you are honest with yourself about your own
motivations/desires.

Regarding the anthropic principle, note that there are various
interpretations for why the universe may appear fine-tuned for life. I go
over the possible answers in this article/video:
https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/ -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLs

>
>
>
>>   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.
>

But consider: sometimes truth implies existence. Take, for example, the
truth that 9 is a composite number rather than a prime.
This implies the existence of a factor besides 1 and 9. Namely: 3.

Or take for example, the truth that program P runs for N steps, reaching a
final state S_n. Does the truth of this (as well as all the truths of the
corresponding intermediate states S_1 to S_(n-1) imply the platonic
existence of the computational trace of program P? If Program P happens to
be a program computing the universal wave function of our universe, which
contains conscious beings, including you and me, writing this e-mail
exchange, then would the platonic existence of program P imply the
existence of our consciousness?

>
> 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.
>

I agree.

>
>
>> 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.
>

To discover 2+2=4, I agree something more than the truth of 2+2=4 is
needed. But that something else, might just be a mathematician's brain who
himself exists as a platonic mathematical object, or a result of a
computational trace of some program whose states reach certain values as a
consequence of mathematical truth.

See this section, regarding "Universal Equations" -- a fairly recent
discovery by mathematicians:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Universal_Equations

>
>
>
>
>>   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...
>

I think mathematicians who study mathematical objects all day, are more
open to the idea that they are discovering, rather than inventing
mathematics.

"It is an idea that many mathematicians are comfortable with. In this
scheme, the truths that mathematicians seek are, in a clear sense, already
“there”, and mathematical research can be compared with archaeology; the
mathematicians’ job is to seek out these truths as a task of discovery
rather than one of invention."
-- Roger Penrose in “The Big Questions: What is reality?
<https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780-069-the-big-questions-what-is-reality/>”
(2006)

Indeed, this is an almost inevitable conclusion since Gödel proved that
mathematical truths are not the product of our human-invented axiomatic
systems:

"[The existence of] absolutely undecidable mathematical propositions, seems
to disprove the view that mathematics is only our own creation; for the
creator necessarily knows all properties of his creatures, because they
can’t have any others except those he has given to them. So this
alternative seems to imply that mathematical objects and facts (or at least
something in them) exist objectively and independently of our mental acts
and decisions, that is to say, [it seems to imply] some form or other of
Platonism or ‘realism’ as to the mathematical objects."
-- Kurt Gödel in “Some basic theorems on the foundations of mathematics and
their implications p. 311
<https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/wp-content/uploads/Godel-Basic-Theorems-and-Their-Implications-1.pdf>″
(1951)

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230503/585e4798/attachment.htm>