On 19 Nov 2008, at 16:01, m.a. wrote:

> So you're saying that a "physics extracted from mechanism" which  
> (let's assume) refutes mechanism,


If a physics extracted from mechanism refutes mechanism, then  
mechanism is refuted. (p implies not p) is equivalent with (not p).

I guess you meant "refutes materialism". One main point is that  
physics extracted logically from comp could be refuted by the  
experimental facts, and this would lead to an experimental refutation  
of comp.



> leads inescapably to a mathematical structure in logic-space which  
> actually  constitutes the "physical" universe.


Yes. (for "technical reasons" on which I should perhaps not insist, I  
am far from sure it makes sense to say it is a mathematical structure,  
but mathematical structures can approximate "it".)





> And thus we can justify and explain the physical laws without any  
> reference to matter.

My point is modest (although perhaps radical). It is that IF we assume  
mechanism, THEN we HAVE TO explain the physical laws without any  
reference to matter, energy, time, space. Those things are of second  
order, emerging eventually in "normal" dreams by numbers' dream".
But the math is there and we can already begin the comparison. (This  
is the more difficult "arithmetical UDA). With comp we can only refer  
to numbers, and what numbers "says" about numbers, etc.



> Is that it or are their other implications?

The physics we get is multiplied by two. It explains why the apple  
falls of the tree, and why it hurts (in case *you* are below the  
tree ...).
It explains both the origin of the sharable and doubtable quanta, and  
the private,  non doubtable and non sharable qualia, and how they are  
related. It gives a pretty coherent picture which is more akin to  
Plato than to Aristotle.

But the key point is that it makes mechanism a testable theory. That  
picture is testable. Somehow QM already confirms some "weird"  
consequences of comp, like its many realties/histories interfering  
statistically. This relation can be made more precise, but the thought  
experiment show "only" the *necessity* of explaining physics through  
number relations and the way (universal) numbers reflect those  
relations.


Bruno


>
>
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Hi m.a.
>>
>>
>>  if mechanism is true, then the "physical universe" appears to be  
>> the border of the universal machine "ignorance". The cosmos is the  
>> tip of the iceberg. And the laws of physics are really something  
>> which evolved, yet not in a space time, but in a logical space  
>> gluing the possible machine "dreams". I am not saying this is true,  
>> only that it is a consequence of the seemingly innocent (for some  
>> naturalist) mechanist hypothesis.
>>
>>  It gives a way to justify the why and how of physical laws, and  
>> this from mechanism, and this without making the (ad hoc)  
>> assumption of a physical universe. And if you do the math, you get  
>> a physics extracted from mechanism, and you can use it to confirm  
>> mechanism or to refute it.
>>
>> You can take the reasoning train which is currently passing. Mainly  
>> the MGA can be understood by patient layman having some notion of  
>> digital machine.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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