[goldenkey]

But aye..that's the rub. Is there any difference between meat that appears to operate _EXACTLY_ the same as different meat (constructed using the symbols)? Computationally, no. But if two things in an information-theoretic world, are informationally equivalent, then for all intensive purposes, they are equivelent. Quantum physics says this with regard to quantum states, there's no meat to differentiate electrons, only informational states.

You guys basically complemented each-other, and came back to the beauty of the question.

I'd say what's more pressing is, does the information match the implementation. That is, is there any glimpse of external forces (that implement our universe) inside of it.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

If our whole reality is more of a rouge, rather than an accident, then it's possible our reality has almost nothing to do with the parent-verse. And well, everything we seem to value as good models for the true implementation, are well, garbage.

[westoncb]

I think you have a mistake here:

> ...the same as different meat (constructed using the symbols)?

Your answer is talking about a comparison between, e.g., a human and an essentially identical human /constructed/ using a set of symbols that encodes our understanding of the human's constitution.

The original question is comparing, e.g. a human and a set of symbols which describes the human.

I consider each of the following to be meaningfully separate questions:

Reality is mathematics.

Reality can be created with mathematics.

Something equivalent to reality can be created using mathematics, if 'informational equivalence' is the equivalence relation in question.

[goldenkey]

True reality is ineffable. The subjective does not equal the objective.

The nature of consciousness is a black box. Therefore the nature of measurement, of assurance that mathematics matches reality, is only within the context of conscious observation, which is therefore subjective.

The objective truth will not be found within subjection.

[zbyte64]

> The nature of consciousness is a black box. Therefore the nature of measurement, of assurance that mathematics matches reality, is only within the context of conscious observation, which is therefore subjective.

Consciousness has a track record of taking a black box and deducing what is going on inside.

> The objective truth will not be found within subjection.

Wouldn't you need to understand the nature of subjective processes in order to stipulate such a limit? If you don't understand consciousness then you do not understand its limits.

[goldenkey]

Yes, but it all rests on a foundation that the inside of the black box is similar to the outside of the black box. And that, may be totally false.