Le 09-nov.-08, à 20:29, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>> You don't get the point. Mechanism is incompatible with naturalism. To
>> solve the mind body problem, keeping mechanism, the laws of physicist
>> have to be explained from computer science, even from the gap between
>> computer science and computer's computer science ...
>> Physics is the fixed point of universal machine self observation.
> That would be a very impressive result if you could prove it - and you
> prove that there is no other empirically equivalent model.
As I said, you don't get yet the whole point. UDA+MGA *is* the proof.
You seem very near though.
I will come back on this and on your post and Kory's one, once I am a
little less busy. Probably the day after tomorrow.
But UDA (including MGA) is really presented (at least) as a definite
proof that IF I am a digitalisable machine (whatever I am beside that)
THEN there is no more choice in the matter: Physics is the fixed point
of universal machine introspection, and any verifiable empîrical model
which would contradict the unique comp-physics would give an empirical
reason to believe that comp is false. This is what I try to say in the
list since the beginning.
I am, for sure, open to the idea that there is an error in the proof,
but up to now, I have heard only of rumors (mainly made by some
dogmatic materialist who seems never to have really studied the
The proof is "easy", because it is non constructive. The interview with
the lobian machine makes it constructive. This is more technical and
actually it is not needed to get the proof. It is needed only to derive
explicitly physics from comp. The logic Z1* gives already the logic of
the observable propositions, and Z1*, that very special non classical
logic, is confirmed up to now by the empirical work (quantum physics).
PS I think I see the point that you are still missing. I will have to
explain that whatever the physical universe is, in the case I am Turing
emulable, the physical universe is NOT turing emulable. Up to now, the
apparent emulability of Everett Universe, and its lack of first person
rabbits does contradict comp. But again, this moves is shown
technically weak once we take incompleteness seriously into account in
the picture. This is also why it is hard for me not to mention the
technical part. Without that part, I would have stop to assume comp
since a long time! I know that I am saying something terribly
counter-intuitive, especially after 1500 years of Aristotelianism in
the science of matter. We will come back on this asap.
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