>>>I agree, sort of (I'll talk about algorithms as generators later on). It is also true that if the chess board was constructed out of wood in 'reality' there would still exist algorithms for manufacturing the chess board. Players would also exist, and the rules would exist both in the minds of people who know the game and on media of various types. I don't see how the distinction of a virtual vs. a real environment changes the picture at all.>H: "The issue is what is more fundamental, algorithms or phenomenal things". P:
I don't think that's the issue at all. At least it is not an issue with me. In my view, god dreamed them both up and the particular sequence is unimportant. My guess is that both algorithms and phenomenal things are undergoing continual creation sort of like chickens and eggs. If I had to guess, though I would say that the first egg preceded the first chicken and that the first algorithm preceded the first phenomenal thing.>H: "The question is why do rules of logic/mathematics exist. The issue is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned." P: Here may be a crucial point of disagreement between us, Harv. To me, the question of why the rules of logic exist is the real issue. Notice I only said 'logic' and not 'mathematics'. Mathematics is simply an arbitrary game played with squiggles. The rules of logic are a lot more mysterious to me. I don't know whether god can defy the rules of logic or not, but he definitely can decide to adopt different and even contradictory rules of mathematics just as we humans do.>H: "That is, a rule is simply a reflection of the current state of affairs." P: This definition seems to be nonsense to me, Harv. I think a rule is a description of a transformation.>>The space may also be quite different from the space we seem to experience. The number of dimensions and the metric could be vastly different from what we think our space has.