Le 27-mars-06, à 20:34, 1Z (Peter D Jones) a écrit :

> You think "matter" is different to"stuff" ?

When I define matter by what is observable, I don't necessarily 
consider it as a primary stuffy thing indeed.
Given that arithmetical truth already emulate all "video-games" with 
internal observers incapable of testing the "stuffiness" of their 
environment, you can easily conceive the consistency of the idea that 
we don't need to postulate more than arithmetical truth.

> I suppose so. But you stlll haven' t explained why "physics is all
> about
> matter" doesn't equate to "physics is all about stuff".

Don't put to much literal interpretation on words. If by matter or 
stuff you mean electron, or whatever that makes the needles of some 
apparatus here or there, again I believe that the electron exists, but 
this has nothing to do with the idea that the electron or the string or 
whatever "physical" is primitive or not. My point is that we cannot 
believe at the same time in the primitiveness of matter and in the 
computationalist hypothesis (or incredibly weaker as I have discovered 
and made precise after the comp PhD).

>>>> nor do they postulate it with the notable exception of
>>>> Aristotle, and of those moderns who show that a boolean conception 
>>>> of
>>>> matter is contradicted by the facts and/or the QM theory.
>>> If a "boolean concept" of matter is wrong , then a boolean concept
>>> of matter is wrong. That does not mean that matter itself is
>>> non-existent.
>> I have never said that matter is non-existent. I say only that matter
>> is not a primitive concept. That the existence of matter emerge from
>> average of observer/machine points of views.
> Your second sentence does not support your first. Something may be
> observationally,
> theoretically and epistemically comples and still be ontologically
> simple.
> The fact that the scientific concept of matter doesn't *seem*
> particularly
> obvious or intuitive to humans just means we are not born with apriori
> knowlede of the world. The problem , if there is one, is with us, not
> with matter.

If matter exists. Do you agree that this is not obvious. (here again I 
mean by matter a notion of primitive matter, not just physical theories 
and possible interpretation of it).

Can you doubt about the existence of primitive matter.

What is your conception of matter? Strings living in a space-time? Loop 
gravity. What is your interpretation of QM. I mean "matter" is less 
clear today than yesterday (even if yesterday matter was already 
unclear for those who believe in consciousness).
Even Descartes was already aware that if the world was explainable in a 
mechanist way, no observation could provide a definite evidence of the 
existence of matter. But Descartes believed in matter and to justify 
it---keeping the mechanist hypothesis---he was forced to invoke the 
transcendental goodness of a God.

>> Only the putative stuffy Aristotelian matter disappears.
> I don't know of any other kind of matter.

But even physicist can sometimes imagine that. That would be the case 
if all units disappear in some fundamental equation. But then if you 
want a concrete model of palpable but immaterial matter, just study the 
UDA (or even some other proposal in this list). Oh, I think I will send 
asap some other immaterialist TOE (not based on comp for a change).

> What you are presumably
> saying is that a solipsistic perceived world will seem to be a material
> world. But do you really have an explanation for that ?

Well, with comp, it is enough to understand that "numbers" can dream, 
in a sense which is not so easy to explain concisely of course. But my 
url contains links to my papers (and to the list but those needs to be 

> Or are you just
> assuming that a computational multiverse will conveniently behave like
> a quantum multiverse ?

Well, a priori, with comp, we get to many universes in the comp 
multiverse, but then the "simple" argument showing there are too much 
comp-universes is put under highly non trivial constraints once we add 
conditions of consistency. This is due to the non trivial consequences 
of the incompleteness phenomena. And indeed I got from that a begining 
of explanation of why those universes interfere and why probabilities 
behaves in some weird way. Then I am stuck in mathematical conjectures 
(meaning more works remain to be done, but that is hardly astonishing).

>> On the
>> contrary, the physical laws (the math of the observable) should be 
>> made
>> more solid as arising from purely number theoretical relations, as 
>> seen
>> and glued together by an infinite union of first person point of view.
> That's not explaining matter as such -- as "stuff" -- that's explaining
> physics
> phenomenologically/instrumentally/solipsistically.

If me or someone else derive QM string or loop theory without invoking 
stuff, I think we will say that we don't need no more the hypothesis of 
Nobody has succeed in defining stuff or justifying it exists. Why do 
you want we try to explain something vaguely defined and that nobody 
has ever see?
It is like if Napoleon would have said to Laplace "Sorry but your 
theory does not explain God, and should be abandoned".
If you really believe in stuff, I think the burden is for you ... if 
only just explaining what do you really mean by that. I have less 
problem with consciousness, which I verify every instant.
To doubt matter, just one dream is enough, or just a little bit of 
imagination in front of video-games.

>>> Note, BTW, the extreme generality of the concept of matter I am 
>>> using;
>>> matter is whatever makes one abstract form, rather than another,
>>> concretely exist.
>> ?
> To put it another way, matter answers the HP problem. HP universes are
> not observed
> because they do not concretely exist. "They do not concretely exist"
> means they are
> not material.

? ?

>>>>  In the
>>>> meantime if you can find a more circumscribed set of references ...
>>> ?????
>>> Can you point me to the paper in a journal of botany that definitely
>>> proves,
>>> for once and all, that plants exist ?
>> I have not so much doubt that plants exist, and if you define matter 
>> by
>> the object study of physicists, I have no problem. I believe in
>> fermions and bosons and anyons, and in the moon also. But I take them
>> as abstract type of observable things, sometimes with a so much
>> specificity relatively to me that indeed for all practical purpose I
>> will consider them as token. But both from QM and comp, I hardly
>> believe those token are token-identified by any form of "concrete
>> stuff".
> There is nothing about QM that suggests that matter does not exist
> (ie that all abstract forms are instantiated. The SWE in that case *is*
> the constraint.).

But even SWE is presented as an immaterial constrained. Nothing in QM 
suggests that matter (the stuffy primitive one) exists. And with comp, 
such a stuffy matter can no more explained anything, giving that from a 
first person perspective the mathematical and physical are not 

>>  *Primitive* matter is the bullet of both cognitive science and
>> physics. It makes unnecessarily complex both mind and matter (and 
>> their
>> relations).
> The problem with the mind-body relation is the mathematical
> **description**
> of matter.

I agree.  It is *the* main problem. A quite interesting one, and I have 
perhaps make progress.

> Hmm. Matter can be primitive (particularly under my definition) without
> physics being
> the fundamental science.


> Of course the computational theory of mind does not directly equate to
> idealism; computers are real things, real processes.

Yes but you know, that word "real" what does it mean in a scientific 
More so since I have shown (others developed similar argument in the 
list) that once you postulated comp (even the concrete one applying it 
in some concrete universe) then eventually the idea of concrete 
universe became explicatively empty. The approach I gave is 
constructive, it proposes an alternative theory.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to