Le 07-févr.-07, à 17:34, Mark Peaty a écrit :

>  Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have 
> understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having 
> figure this out by themselves.'
>
>  MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to 
> understand 'it' to be able to exist within it!


Of course! Like babies can use their brain without understanding it ...



>
>  SO, yes I will ask: What do you mean by 'physical'?



It concerns the stable appearance described by hypothetical "physical 
theories" (like classical mechanics, QM, etc.).

I found an argument showing that IF comp(*) is correct THEN those 
stable appearances emerge from arithmetic as seen from internalized 
point of views. Those can be described in computer science, and It 
makes the comp hyp falsifiable: just extract the physical appearance 
from comp and compare with nature. I will say more in a reply to 
Stathis.



(*) comp means there exist a tuiring emulable  level of description of 
"myself" (whatever I am), meaning I would notice a functional 
substitution made at that level).




>
>  And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?

There are mainly two sort of existence. The absolute fundamental one, 
and the internal or phenomenological one.
If you understand the Universal Dovetailer Argument, you can understand 
that, assuming the comp hypothesis, it is enough to interpret existence 
by the existential quantifier in some first order logic description of 
arithmetic. (like when you say "it exist a prime number").
All the other existence (like headache, but also bosons, fermions, 
anyons, ...) are phenomelogical, and can be described by "It exist a 
stable and coherent collection of machines correctly believing from 
their point of view in "bosons", etc. (I simplify a bit).

If you want, I say that IF comp is true, only numbers exist, all the 
rest are dreams with relative degree of stability.





>
>  These are very basic questions, and in our context here, 'dumb' 
> questions for sure, but without some clarification on how people are 
> using these words, I don't think I can go any further.

You are welcome, and I don't believe there is dumb questions. I have 
developed the Universal dovetailer argument, in the seventies, and it 
was a pedagogical tools for explaining the mathematical theory which 
consist in interviewing an universal machine on its possible physics.
I have published all this in the eighties and defend it as a thesis in 
the nineties. I am aware it goes against materialism (based on the 
concept of primary (aristotelian) materialism.
All this provides mathematical clean interpretation of neoplatonist 
researchers (like Plato, Plotinus, Proclus). If you want I show that 
concerning machine's theology it is wrong to reify matter or nature.

Note that I am using the term "materialism" in a weaker sense than its 
use in philosophy of mind. But materialism I mean the metaphysical 
reification of Matter. The idea that some primitive matter exists.

Hope this helps a bit. Perhaps you could study my last version of UDA 
in my SANE04 paper to see the point. You can ask question for any step. 
Then if you are willing to invest in mathematical logic, you will see 
how the UDA can be made entirely mathematical *and*  falsifiable.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to