On 19 Nov 2008, at 22:16, m.a. wrote:
> I was just quoting you: "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." Did you mean "refutes materialism"?
Thanks for quoting the entire sentence, before I was misunderstanding
Let us go back to the point. The point of MGA is to show that MEC +
MAT implies a contradiction. You can see that it is equivalent with
- the proposition saying that MEC implies NON MAT (mechanism refutes
- the proposition saying that MAT implies NON MECH (materialism
Now, MECH implies " NON MAT" can be made constructive. This means MECH
provides the complete constraints of how a physical laws looks like
and come from, meaning physics is a branch of computationalist theory
of mind (itself a branch of number theory, in a slightest more general
sense of "number").
Now, imagine that luckily we arrive at a proof that the "arithmetical"
electron weights two kg. Then we will know that mechanism is false.
Now assuming comp we discover the physics in the inverse way of the
empiricists, we discover the multiverse before the universe, the
interference of sub-level histories, before the histories, the logic
of the observable before the observation, etc.
The point, (of course I am thinking to Kory) is that I try to explain
a reasoning which shows that the (DIGITAL) MECH hypothesis, can,
thanks to "digital" be transformed into a scientific (meaning Popper-
refutable) inquiry. A bit like John Bell succeed to show that the
Einstein Podolski Rosen was not the product of a senile physician
doing philosophy in its old days). It is science. At least this is
what the construction is supposed to explain (and its translation in
arithmetic is supposed to pave the way of a concretization of the idea).
The MECH is a venerable old philosophical idea. The reason and tools
making it a science is due to Babbage, Post Turing Kleene Church
Markov and Co. extraordinary discovery of the universal machine.
"Nature" discovered it before us, for example we are such machine, but
enlightening comes when a universal machine begin to suspect its own
universality, and discovers the "everything" and its many (related)
sub-structure "inside herself".
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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.
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