Comment by iugtmkbdfil834
20 days ago
<< This is the self evident dogma that we have to overcome to understand this idea.
It is more of an argument. If the mathematical description somehow created fire, it would have been closer to an actual spell, but it doesn't, which would suggest that description is not accurate or the argument is flawed ( edit: or both ). The flaw I noted puts both your and my argument in a difficult place, because it, among other things, exposes your surety about 'ultimately'.
I am engaging with you, because, while I think you are wrong, I don't want to pour cold water on an inquisitive mind ( and some of the thoughts you listed are interesting to explore ) -- I just also happen to think you got too mesmerized by the novelty of the idea.
FWIW, I am just guy on the internet so don't take my word for it.
> I don't want to pour cold water on an inquisitive mind..
Thanks, I appreciate that.
> If the mathematical description somehow created fire..
The mathematical description does not create a fire. It describes a consciousness that is observing a fire.
I am not elaborating so as to not muddle the above point.
I was going to offer an immediate, reactive response, but I decided against it. I will sleep on it a little. As I said, the concept is interesting enough that, even if wrong, it is worth contemplating.