>>13674553>Sorry, you're just plain wrong on most of what you wrote.No, I'm not.
>First, logic starts with the three fundamental laws, principle of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of the excluded middleI already know this, my undergrad degree is a double major in computer science and mathematics.
>Doing anything else is tantamount to just throwing your arms up and saying "Well you can't prove that we aren't just in the Matrix" which I'm not going to do.No, your position is the one arguing that the mathematics of an object are no different from the object. In my position, the concept of the "matrix" can not exist even in principle, because there is no separate set of objects that can have the same behavior of a set of objects that aren't them. The only things that exist are the fundamental particles and their unique behaviors, which are physical, not mathematical.
You can not take a mathematical model or a simulation of a carbon atom and have that system actually behave as a carbon atom. It will literally never happen. No matter what symbols you write on paper, no matter what code you write on a computer, etc. They aren't the same thing.
>Yes, the mathematics that are truly occurring are the exact same as the carbon atom itselfNo it isn't. You can not take mathematics that you use to describe a carbon atom, and then take that piece of paper, or computer that you're running the simulation on, etc., and turn it into a methane bond. That is not possible. The mathematics you use to describe the atom does not exist as the atom itself. It does not have the same properties, it does not move through spacetime in the same way. You are using an entirely different set of atoms to record a set of symbols that you have pre-defined and made up in order to help you think about the system you're dealing with.
The math isn't real. You are wrong.
