Hi Paul,
We obviously are going down an endless road here. Just a couple of bullet points in response:
- instantiate means to cause to exist
- a normative law is a cause and not just a descriptions
- virtual particles come into existence, what instantiates them? Consciousness?
- an algorithm is "systematic procedure that produces-in a finite number of steps-the answer to a question or the solution of a problem." (Britannica.com)
- True, a CPU executes instructions, but this is an analogy. Actual causes of things is metaphysical and not observable. Therefore, no analogy can demonstrate the underlying cause for anything observable.
- If physics is reduceable to mathematics, then what is the purpose of this feat other than show that the universe is caused by mathematical order?
- If you are a platonist, then aren't you committed to the existence of true mathematical statements? What makes those statements true?
- Logic shares all the features that mathematicians introduce. The principle of bivalence, for example, is rejected not only by Dick but by many philosophers and logicians.
- Any foundationalist view to the universe should be very simple and not add more concepts than are necessary. That is why I favor a view that shows logical statements emerging from an undefined phenomenal reality. It is very simple and doesn't require all those 'complex structures' that you are advocating.
- If God has an infinite past, then infinity exists. Are you really openminded to infinity as a real possibility?
- Mathematical and logic lemmas and theorems fit the definition of an algorithm.
- If algorithms do nothing, then why do physical laws begin to look more and more like mathematical algorithms?
- An equation of a circle doesn't instantiate a circle, but it makes it possible for a circle to be instantiated.
- I agree that God instantiated the universe, we differ on what God is and how God instantiates things. As an algorithm, I think the collective truths (Logos) instantiated the universe. These collective truths partially correspond to mathematical statements and that is why we see correlation between physics and math.
- "I hope I have helped you see the error in this belief." *smile*
- Why is your view talking about being simple? What is the reason that simplicity is important in your model of reality?
- True statements are simple. They are statements that fully correspond with phenomenal reality and are fully coherent with each other. The exact definition of how all that works is complex, but the concept itself is very simple.
- Space is mathematically describle. It has terms such as dimension, basis, coordinates, metrics, etc to describe it. Mathematics spends a great deal of time describing 'space'.
- Isn't it odd that in a finite past that something would *magically* come from nothing and this something happened to be a personage (consciousness)? Why not just advocate a universe as *magically* popping out of nothing in a finite past and cut to the chase? If you are going to advocate magic, then why not do as less magic as possible?
As always Paul, it's been fun.
Warm regards, Harv |