[ExI] Another reason why Platonism can't be true

Sun Feb 22 22:34:41 UTC 2026

On Sun, Feb 22, 2026, 4:02 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On 22/02/2026 16:03, Jason Resch wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 8:45 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >
> >     On 22/02/2026 11:41, John K Clark wrote:
> >
> >     > ... it's impossible to process data without physics
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     Very good point. And further, it's impossible for information to
> even exist without some kind of physical embodiment.
> >
> >
> > Physical embodiment is only necessary for some information to be learned
> by you.
>
> What??
> I don't know how you reckon that.
> Embodiment is necessary for any and all information, full stop. This has
> nothing to do with me.
>

You are extrapolating to a conclusion that in my opinion is not justified.
It is analogous to someone who has only encountered one red object
concluding there can only be one red thing because it's the only red thing
they've ever seen.

In this case, your only experience of information is physically embodied
information, and you extrapolate from this to the conclude that information
can only exist when it is physically embodied.

But note this is simply an extrapolation from your limited experience as a
being in this universe. It's not a logical argument, nor a proof, nor any
kind of reliable evidence.

> >  But I don't see from this fact you reached the conclusion that
> information can only exist physically. It is like saying you know other
> universes (besides this one) can't exist, because information can only
> exist in this one.
>
> No, it's not. I'm not saying that. You are straw-manning my argument.
>

I am sorry if I mischaracterized it. If I got it wrong then I am curious to
know what is your argument  for why information can only exist if it's
embodied in this physical universe (but not in any kind of other
mathematical structure)?

> > ...
> >
> >     That's all that needs to be said, really.
> >
> >     1) It rules out the existence of a 'Platonic realm' containing all
> of maths, because maths is full of things that need to be calculated in
> order for them to be known.
> >
> >
> >     Unless you claim that all the results of all the calculations that
> are possible, already exist (an infinite number).
> >
> >
> > That is the claim, yes.  See page 45 here, about how LISP computers,
> defining the final execution state of any LISP program, exist in pure
> number theory: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0404335
> >
>
> That's total gibberish to me. I'm no mathematician, I don't even
> understand negative numbers, but it doesn't matter. You say Yes, that's the
> claim (all possible results of all possible calculations exist somehow, in
> some fantasmal realm). So my question is, how is this infinite amount of
> information embodied? Because if it isn't embodied, it doesn't exist.
>

This is what we are debating. I question your claim that physical
embodiment is required. How do you justify that?

If you ask how I see the information existing, when not physically embodied
that is why I point to the paper above. Computations, even complete
executions of programs (of unlimited complexity) exist as a consequence of
true relationships between numbers.

I realize this sounds crazy. It took me many years to develop an
understanding of for how this works. Even mathematicians were astonished
and couldn't believe it when the result was published in 1970 (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_tenth_problem ).

Sounding so crazy of course means the bar should be very high for
acceptance (extraordinary claims...) but fortunately there is ample
empirical evidence for this. If we presume it is true, we can explain many
facts of our physical universe that otherwise we can't explain.

> >
> >     And then, 2) you'd need to explain how this infinite amount of
> information can exist without any physical embodiment.
> >
> >
> > This is akin to someone who has lived within a virtual reality
> simulation their whole life saying "it is impossible for information to
> exist without some kind of virtual embodiment," and then concluding on this
> premise, that "for some hypothetical physical world (underlying this
> virtual reality) to exist, you'd need to explain how all that physical
> information can exist without any virtual embodiment."
>
> No, it's not.
> Virtual embodiment of information is still embodiment, and is based on a
> physical layer. Information can only exist if it is embodied, regardless of
> how.
> My point is that a platonic realm cannot exist, because it would have to
> contain information, but has no way to do that.
>

If you allow another lower level below a virtual level, how do we rule out
the existence of another layer (possibly platonic/mathematical) existing
below the physical, which embodies they physical information?

> Don't try to muddy the water by invoking alternate universes and virtual
> realities, these things are irrelevant to the central point.
>

I think it is central to my argument. If any number of nested layers of
computed worlds can exist, how can any layer determine itself to be the
base level? Why can't physical reality exist on top of the substrate of
platonic computations?

> ...
>
> > As I asked John, what powers all the computation, what stores all the
> information, the universe uses to compute its evolution? If you say the
> universe itself, then the universe is a structure that can compute and
> store information on its own. Why should the universe be the only structure
> with these properties?
>
> Nobody is claiming it is.
>

Then perhaps our positions are not too far from each other. If structures
like our universe can exist and compute on their own, then other
structures, such as Turing machines can also exist and compute on their
own. The resulting picture that emerges is little different from Platonism:
the set of all possible structures existing on their own, and computing on
their own when they are structures that support computation.

> The claim is that in order for there to be structure, there must be
> something to be structured. IOW, information must be embodied.
>

Is our physical universe embodied?

>     If that were somehow possible, what would then be the point of the
> physical world? Why would it even exist? That would be the biggest
> violation of Occam's Razor possible.
> >
> >
> > Not at all. The universe is the structure that emerges with the least
> information complexity required to explain your present state of conscious
> experience. This is an outcome of algorithmic information theory. See this
> paper for details about how much of physical law can be extracted purely
> from starting with the assumption of observer states and seeing what
> algorithmic information theory implies for what typical observers will see:
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01826 It is fascinating.
>
> No, it's not fascinating, it's more muddy water. (And I'm pretty sure the
> structure of the universe is not dependent on my conscious experience).
>

Ask yourself, "what is the basis for this belief?"
Is there a reason behind it or is it just a rejection of the new and
unfamiliar?

Note this is not a fringe or crackpot idea, just one that is little
known/appreciated outside of theoretical physics. Greats such as Max
Planck, Werner Heisenberg, John Wheeler, Stephen Hawking, etc. have all
endorsed this idea, among many others.

In the past, they lacked evidence connecting this idea to empirically
verifiable observations. We have that now.

There is at this time, no alternative theory that explains the universe as
we see it.

>
> >
> >     There's no information processing, or even any information to be
> processed, without the physical world.
> >
> >
> > Again, try to apply this reasoning for the observer stuck in a virtual
> reality.
>
> Again, that has nothing to do with it. Virtual realities, no matter how
> deeply stacked, are still part of the physical world.
>

Would you agree that we can't know whether what we take to be our universe
is a virtual one or a base physical one?

If so, do you see my point that the physical universe could itself be part
of something larger, and more fundamental? Therefore, we can't be certain
what the source of the underlying computations running behind our universe
ultimately is.

> >
> >
> >      Any possible 'platonic realm' would have to be another physical
> world, but with an infinite information capacity (and probably no time
> dimension).
> >
> >
> > The experience of time is a subjective phenomenon, an illusion.
> Spacetime itself does not evolve. You can thus view the entire universe as
> a sort of static four-dimensional object.
>
> I don't really know about the time thing, that was just an afterthought.
> The point is: Where is the infinite amount of information? It's certainly
> not in this universe.
>

It is created by the infinity of true relationships that exist between
numbers. The simplest path to see this is to recognize that there are
equations whose solutions correspond to the execution of every computable
function. So if numbers, and the truths concerning them, exist, then all
computations exist. It is the barest imaginable TOE, it assumes only
arithmetic. All the rest, universes, warts and all, can be shown to fall
out from this.

That the ultimate answer is so simple reminds me of this quote:

"Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, so compelling,
that when—in a decade, a century, or a millennium—we grasp it, we will all
say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been
so stupid for so long?"
-- John Archibald Wheeler in “How Come the Quantum?” (1986)

> Let's make it simpler. You claim that /disembodied/ information can exist
> (please say if this is not your claim).
>

I don't know what you mean by body, so I will define that here and answer
your question under different definitions:

If by embodied you mean "instantiated within this physical universe by some
arrangement of particles or fields," then I would say disembodied
information can exist outside such a narrow definition of embodiment. For
example, consider the information contained in Chaitin's omega constant (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin%27s_constant ).

If by embodied information, you mean "instantiated in some objective
structure," then I would say disembodied information doesn't exist. But
note that this loose definition of structure includes other possible
universes z mathematical objects, sets, integers, geometric forms, etc.

> So, I'm asking you to give evidence that such a thing is possible. In
> fact, why don't you send us some?
>

See the "Empirical Evidence and Predictions" section under
https://loc.closertotruth.com/theory/resch-s-platonic-functionalism
Or: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence

(sorry, that's facetious, I know. I just get frustrated when people persist
> in trying to justify utter nonsense and/or try to derail the conversation
> from its main point)
>

I think you just don't care to learn or change your mind in response to new
information. I can only hope others on this mailing list have benefitted
from our discussion.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260222/6b924f0e/attachment.htm>