Sorry Bruno, no disrespect, I meant to type "Hi Bruno".

George Levy wrote:

> Ho Bruno
> Sorry, I have been unclear with myself and with you. I have been 
> lumping together the assumption of an "objective physical world" and 
> an "objective platonic world". So you are right, I do reject the 
> objective physical world, but why stop there? Is there a need for an 
> objective platonic world? Would it be possible to go one more step - 
> the last step hopefully - and show that a the world that we perceive 
> is solely tied to our own consciousness? So I am more extreme than you 
> thought. I believe that the only necessary assumption is the 
> subjective world. Just like Descartes said: Cogito...
> I think that the world and consciousness co-emerge together, and the 
> rules governing one are tied to the rules governing the other. In a 
> sense Church's thesis is tied to the Anthropic principle.  Subjective 
> reality also ties in nicely with relativity and with the relative 
> formulation of QT.
> This being said, I am not denying physical reality or objective 
> reality. However these may be derivable from purely subjective 
> reality. Our experience of a common physical reality and a common 
> objective reality require the existence of common physical frame of 
> reference and a common platonic frame of reference respectively.  A 
> common platonic frame of reference implies that there are other 
> platonic frames of references.....This is unthinkable... literally.  
> Maybe I have painted myself into a corner.... Yet maybe not... No one 
> in this Universe can say...
> George
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>Hi George,
>>I think that we agree on the main line. Note that I never have 
>>pretended that the conjunction of comp and weak materialism (the 
>>doctrine which asserts the existence of primary matter) gives a 
>>contradiction. What the filmed-graph and/or Maudlin shows is that comp 
>>makes materialism
>>empty of any explicative power, so that your "ether" image is quite 
>>appropriate. Primary matter makes, through comp, the observation of 
>>matter (physics) and of course qualia, devoied of any explanation power 
>>even about just the apparent presence of physical laws.
>>I do think nevertheless that you could be a little quick when asserting 
>>that the mind-body problem is solved at the outset when we abandon the 
>>postulate of an objective (I guess you mean physical) world. I hope you 
>>believe in some objective world, being it number theoretical or 
>>computer science theoretical, etc.
>>You point "3)" (see below) is quite relevant sure,
>>Le 08-oct.-07, à 05:10, George Levy a écrit :
>>>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>I think that Maudlin refers to the conjunction of the comp hyp and
>>>>supervenience, where consciousness is supposed to be linked (most of
>>>>the time in a sort of "real-time" way) to the *computational activity*
>>>>of the brain, and not to the history of any of the state occurring in
>>>>that computation.
>>>>If you decide to attach consciousness to the whole physical history,
>>>>then you can perhaps keep comp by making the substitution level very
>>>>low, but once the level is chosen, I am not sure how you will make it
>>>>possible for the machine to distinguish a purely arithmetical version
>>>>of that history (in the arithmetical "plenitude" (your wording)) from
>>>>a "genuinely physical one" (and what would that means?). Hmmm...
>>>>perhaps I am quick here ...
>>>>May be I also miss your point. This is vastly more complex than the
>>>>seven first steps of UDA, sure. I have to think how to make this
>>>>transparently clear or ... false.
>>>As you know I believe that the physical world can be derived from
>>>consciousness operating on a platonic "arithmetic plenitude."
>>>Consequently, tokens describing objective instances in a physical world
>>>cease to be fundamental. Instead, platonic types become fundamentals. 
>>>the platonic world each type exists only once. Hence the whole concept
>>>of indexicals looses its functionality. Uniqueness of types leads
>>>naturally to the "merging universes:" If two observers together with 
>>>world that they observe (within a light cone for example) are identical
>>>then these two observers are indistinguishable from themselves and are
>>>actually one and the same.
>>>I have argued (off list) about my platonic outlook versus the more
>>>established (objective reality) Aristotelian viewpoint and I was told
>>>that I am attempting to undo more than 2000 years of philosophy going
>>>back to Plato. Dealing with types only presents formidable logical
>>>difficulties:  How can types exist without tokens?  I find extremely
>>>difficult to "prove" that the absence of an objective reality at the
>>>fundamental level. Similarly, about a century ago people were asking 
>>>can light travel without Ether. How can one "prove" that Ether does not
>>>exist? Of course one can't but one can show that Ether is not necessary
>>>to explain wave propagation. Similarly, I think that the best one can
>>>achieve is to show that the objective world is not necessary for
>>>consciousness to exist and to perceive or observe a world.
>>>However, some points can be made: getting rid of the objective world
>>>postulate has the following advantages:
>>>1) The resulting theory (or model) is simpler and more universal (Occam
>>>2) The mind-body problem is eliminated at the outset.
>>>3) Physics has been evolving toward greater and greater emphasis on the
>>>observer. So why not go all the way and see what happens?
>>>I don't find Maudlin argument convincing. Recording the output of a
>>>computer and replaying the recording spreads out the processing in time
>>>and can be used to link various processes across time but does not 
>>>that the consciousness is independent of a physical substrate.
>>>Rearranging a tape interferes with the thought experiment and should 
>>>be allowed if we are going to play fair. By the way, I find the phrases
>>>"supervenience" and "physical supervenience" confusing. At first glance
>>>I am not sure if physical supervenience means the physical world
>>>supervening on the mental world or vice versa. I would prefer to use 
>>>active tense and say  "the physical world supervening on the mental
>>>world," or even use the expression "the physical world acting as a
>>>substrate for consciousness".
> >

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

Reply via email to