> It’s important to note that there is a universal range of all mathematical functions: they can only output…. well, numbers.
That isn't even remotely true. Not even digging far, you have higher order functions which takes functions as arguments. You have functions on more abstract algebraic sets.
> You will never see a calculator give you the word “buttercup” or the symbol “” be the output of a function, nor will a sufficiently complex function arise that outputs not just a non-numerical character, but say, a living animal or a distinct smell. You could devise a machine that outputs non-mathematical things when a function takes a certain input, but that is something built outside of this formal system which is the pure realm and ontology of math. Math has a certain ontology which cannot create from itself something of a new or different ontology. This is obvious.
A smell is chemical reaction in your nose between two molecules which triggers a certain electrical impulse propagated to your neurons. You can _argue_ that what happens then is outside the ontology of the material world, but the fact that a smell is not a number has like zero connection to that, so you haven't proven squat.
> that unconscious and unspiritual cosmos of matter is precisely a massive material calculator, we should also realize that it as well cannot create a new distinct ontology out of itself alone—it cannot generate from itself something that is not a physical force of some type or complexity.
What do you mean by a calculator? How can the universe be a calculator if a calculator only deals with numbers (according to your reductive point) yet the universe is also comprised of things that's aren't numbers? You see how that doesn't work out? You can't take a reductive point of view when it suits you and contrast it with non-reductive statements just because.
Also what is "a physical force of some type or complexity" even about?
I'm going to stop here. This is worse than AI slop, it's nonsense.
Kevin_Flynn•7m ago
Theres a simple procedure for verifying this claim:
nchagnet•19m ago
> It’s important to note that there is a universal range of all mathematical functions: they can only output…. well, numbers.
That isn't even remotely true. Not even digging far, you have higher order functions which takes functions as arguments. You have functions on more abstract algebraic sets.
> You will never see a calculator give you the word “buttercup” or the symbol “” be the output of a function, nor will a sufficiently complex function arise that outputs not just a non-numerical character, but say, a living animal or a distinct smell. You could devise a machine that outputs non-mathematical things when a function takes a certain input, but that is something built outside of this formal system which is the pure realm and ontology of math. Math has a certain ontology which cannot create from itself something of a new or different ontology. This is obvious.
A smell is chemical reaction in your nose between two molecules which triggers a certain electrical impulse propagated to your neurons. You can _argue_ that what happens then is outside the ontology of the material world, but the fact that a smell is not a number has like zero connection to that, so you haven't proven squat.
> that unconscious and unspiritual cosmos of matter is precisely a massive material calculator, we should also realize that it as well cannot create a new distinct ontology out of itself alone—it cannot generate from itself something that is not a physical force of some type or complexity.
What do you mean by a calculator? How can the universe be a calculator if a calculator only deals with numbers (according to your reductive point) yet the universe is also comprised of things that's aren't numbers? You see how that doesn't work out? You can't take a reductive point of view when it suits you and contrast it with non-reductive statements just because.
Also what is "a physical force of some type or complexity" even about?
I'm going to stop here. This is worse than AI slop, it's nonsense.