Le 21-août-07, à 07:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
> I thought I made it clear I wasn't trying reduce everything to
Yes. Nice. I did see that. I did just take the opportunity to criticize
both those who believe math IS reducible to physics and those (like you
up to now) who thinks that physics is NOT reducible to math To be
precise, I do think physics is reducible, not exactly in math, but in
machine theology (say); once we assume the comp hyp (see below)..
> Hmm. I doubt physics is 'derivable' from numer/computer theory
> (becuase of the property dualism I am advocating). But I don't think
> math is derivable from physics either. I need to study this UDA
> argument (which I'll get to in due course).
>> Of course by admitting dualism, you already abandon comp. (I do
>> nevertheless agree with some point you make here and there).
>> Actually intersubjective agreement is similar to the first person
>> plural notion of comp, and should comprise experimental physics, world
>> sharing, etc. But it is just a form of objectivity, at some level.
> It's true I've recently settled on property dualism. But could you
> please explain exactly what you mean by *comp* so I can determine if
> there's a conflict?
Comp is a short expression made for "computationalism".
Computationalism, which I called also "digital mechanism" is Descartes
related doctrine that we are digitalisable machine. I make it often
precise by defining comp to be the conjunction of Church Thesis and
"yes doctor". The "yes doctor" assumption is the bet that there is a
level of description of yourself such that you would survive from some
digital reconstruction of your body (the 3-person "you") made at that
From this I don't think it is entirely obvious that materialism (evn
weak materialism, i.e. physicalism) fails. Actually it is the main
point that I try to convey, and it is the object of the Universal
Dovetailer Argument (UDA).
We don't have to postulate physical laws, if comp is true they have to
emerge on even a tiny fragment of arithmetical truth. The UDA is not
constructive (so, after UDA, it still could be that the shorter
derivation of the physical laws from number is intrinsically not
feasible). But then I show how computer science and mathematical paves
the way of an actual short (but complex) derivation of at least the
necessity of a quantum computer as an invariant of all universal
machine neighborhood: this should provide a path from bit to qubits.
The quantum uncertainty emerges from the fact that once a machine look
at herself below her substitution level, she has to find trace of the
entire set of computations going through its actual relative comp
> I'm not sure where we disagree here. By 'explainable' I don't mean
> 'fully explainable' (since of course there are things like
> uncomputables which aren't comprehensible), I just meant that I think
> there do exist meta-explanations of reality (in the form of eternal
> conceptual schemes) at high enough levels of abstraction.
I do agree with this.
>> But apparently, like Chalmers, you seem to dismiss even the
>> of comp. OK?
> Sorry, I meant to say in previous post that my version property is NOT
> quite the same as Chalmer's version.
Nice. I find Chalmers incoherent, both on mind and matter.
> Again, Chalmer's apparently
> makes phenomenal properties primatives, but I do not.
OK. I follow you here.
> Under my
> version, remember, the primatives are Physical,
But I don't follow you here. Even without comp I don't take the
"physical" for granted. Science (including theology) appeared when
human took some distance with "naive realism", despite billions of year
of evolution which programmed us to take seriously our local
neighborhood. But you can understand intellectually that the existence
of primary matter asks for an act of faith. Nobody has ever prove that
that exists, and the very old dream-metaphysical argument put a
reasonable doubt that such a proof can vere been presented. Now, with
comp, I pretend that matter is devoid of any explanation power. Even if
you postulate the existence of matter, you will not been able to use it
to justify any belief, be them on mind or even matter. But I let you
study the UDA which is supposed to explain that.
I don't understand how a teleological thing can be primitive.
> Mathematical entities. 'phenomenal' properties are just a word we use
> to describe what are really mathematical properties. My version need
> not conflict with *comp*.
It conflicts with the reversal matter/mind which follows when you take
comp sufficiently seriously.
You know Marc, I tend to agree with Russell Standish here. Property
dualism can be seen as a form of emergentism. The "property":
'Glass Half Fill'
'Glas Half Empty'
can be said to emerge from the computation locally supported in some
observer mind (person) through the observation of the glass.
In that sense, comp comes up with a property trialism, (the three main
plotinian hypostases/person-pov) or octo-ism (the full 8 hypostases).
But the ontic background of this form of emergentism are the numbers,
not physical primitives.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at