From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 13:20:44 MDT
On Monday, June 17, 2002, at 02:55 am, Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 11:34 PM 6/16/02 -0700, Wei Dai wrote:
>
>> We believe that there is a mathematical structure that corresponds with
>> our physical universe, which implies that mathematical structures can
>> contain sentient beings. Even if nothing exists physically, these
>> beings
>> inside platonic mathematical structures can still have consciousness.
>
> I guess the discussion reduces to an undecidable contest of intuitions.
> Right now, I find this claim (`beings inside platonic mathematical
> structures can still have consciousness') strictly inconceivable, just
> word
> play.
I agree. Math is just a notational language to rigorously describe
physical reality. I could claim that English has the same properties.
We can write sentence structures that describes our physical universe.
Therefore these sentences can contain people, places and things.
Therefore stories can contain sentient beings. Even if nothing exists
physically, these sentient beings in the story continue to live inside
the story and can still have consciousness.
This is bogus. Just because words describe a person speaking, does not
mean there is really a conscious, sentient being in the story.
Likewise, just because math describes something in reality, does not
mean that there is a real live object or person existing within the
mathematical structure.
A mathematical formula does not contain real people. A book does not
contain real people. A map does not contain real towns with real
people. A photograph does not contain real people. Merely describing
people with words, math or pictures does not mean they are consciously
living outside of any physical reality.
This argument is just word play. It confuses the map with the territory.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:52 MST