Le 01-avr.-06, à 00:46, 1Z a écrit :

> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> And read perhaps the literature on the mind body problem: all
>> materialist approaches has failed, and then the result I got  explains
>> what it should be so.
> I have my own analysis of  the problem: the words "map" and "territory"
> feature.

All right but sometime map are continuously or computationally embedded 
in the territory, and so there is a fixed point where the point of the 
map coincide with the point of the territory: typically yhe indexical 
"where you are", both with respect to the territory and its mapped 

The same, somehow, when you say "yes" to the comp doctor. It is not a 
model of the functioning of your brain that he will put in your head, 
it is, by hypothesis and/or act of faith, a digitally equivalent 

>> Actually you could perhaps explain how do you think a machine is able
>> to distinguish a material (physical) reality from an immaterial
>> (arithmetical) reality.
> The same way I can.

Perhaps you can. But I can't take this assertion as a (third person) 
argument. Because with comp the old dream metaphysical argument extend 
itself on arithmetical truth, so that I suspect you cannot pretend you 
can and remain at the same time a sound entity.

> What can be thought (logical possibility)
> is much broader than what is observed.

Indeed. The point is that with comp, what can be observed emerges from 
what can be thought.
Not by humans, but by universal machines (or sub-universal one,  but 
don't want be technic here).

> Therefore, there are
> constraints -- matter, laws, etc.

Any sound theorem prover machine can already prove that in order to 
singularize any observable token related to her, she will need an 
infinity of such constraints.

Observation can only be partial filtration (by comp). Physical 
realities emerge from coherence conditions on machine's dreams overlap; 
where dream =  "computation" as "seen" from some first-person (plural) 
point of view, and then, the emergence is related to the way  those 
point-of-views glue with each others. Theoretical computer science and 
modal logic makes this precise and testable (see my url if you are 

It seems you believe that the realist modal or other arithmetical 
realist inflations of possibilities are unsolvable without invoking a 
sort of ad-hoc god, a *physical* universe, but my feeling is that you 
underestimated the subtlety of the relation between numbers. The fact 
is that there already exist mathematical tools which help to formulate 
such problems, and the incompleteness phenomena makes those questions 
not so easy.



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