Bruno Marchal wrote:

> >> Note that if you understand the whole UDA, you should realize that the
> >> price of assuming a physical universe (and wanting it to be related
> >> with our experiences *and* our experiments) is to postulate that you
> >> (and us, if you are not solipsistic) are not turing emulable.
> >
> > Perhaps I misunderstood.  I thought it only implied that you were
> > *probably*
> > being turing emulated - not that you necessarily were.
> ?
> No, if comp is true you are certainly emulate (even before the
> reversal).

If comp and platonsim are both true.

> But if "matter" exists in a primary way (like Peter D. Jones describes
> it), then the UDA leads to our non turing emulability. UDA shows "I am
> turing emulable" => physics emerge from number relations.

The UDA might be capable of showing that somethign like
physics *would* emerge form a UD *if* it existed. But you
don't get the existence of a UD for free -- you have
to assume Platonism or something else.

If the UD doesn't exist, then physics is emerging from
something else, presumably matter.

The argument has to assume the necessary existence of the UD.
(If it is possible that the UD doesn't exist, it is possible
that physics is emerging from semething else)
It is difficult to see what would entail that  except Platonism.

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

Reply via email to