On 19 Aug, 10:28, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/8/19 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:
> > There is no immaterial existence at all, and my agreeign to have
> > my brain physcially replicated doesn't prove there is.
> And you saying so doesn't prove there isn't.
> >> >> So to save a role to matter, you will have to make your
> >> >> "consciousness
> >> >> of primitive matter" relying on some non computational feature.
> >> > No. I just have to deny immaterial existence.
> >> You have to deny the theorem of elementary arithmetic, which are used
> >> by physicists (mostly through complex or trigonometric functions,
> >> which reintroduce the natural numbers in the continuum).
> > No. I don't have to deny their truth. I just have to deny that
> > mathematical
> > existence is ontological existence. As I have been
> Then you're missusing 'existence'. Because using your language
> existence = no existence at all ! for mathemetical existence... Why
> bother using the word existence when you don't even mean it.
People do. People agree that Sherlock Holmes lived
at 221b Baker Street even though he lived at all.
If you want to start a project to eliminate metaphorical
and other non-literla uses from langauge, you have
a long way to go.
> >> > You keep confusing the
> >> > idea
> >> > that theoretical entities could hypothetcially have certain beliefs
> >> > with the
> >> > actual existence of those entities and beliefs.
> >> You underestimate the dumbness of the DU, or sigma_1 arithmetic. It
> >> contains the emulation of all the quantum states of the milky way,
> >> with correct approximation of its neighborhood.
> > Since it does not exist, it does not contain anything.
> You say so, but you could repeat it ad infinitum, it won't render it truer.
*If* it does not exist, it does not contain anything.
Now show that it exists.
> >>It is hard to
> >> recognize Peter Jones or Bruno Marchal from the huge relation and huge
> >> numbers involved, in some emulations, but it is easy to prove there
> >> exists, from the information the doctor got when scanning your brain.
> > Same mistake
> > All you can prove is that *if* the UD existed *then* it would
> > contain such-and-such. But it doesn't actually exist.
> >> In computations enough similar than our own most probable current one,
> >> it is a "theorem" that those entities have such or such beliefs, and
> >> behave in such and such ways, developing such and such discourses.
> >> >> Note that if you accept "standard comp", you have to accept that
> >> >> "Peter Jones is generated by the UD" makes sense, even if you cease
> >> >> to
> >> >> give referents to such "Peter Jones".
> >> > False. Standard comp says nothing about Platonism or AR.
> >> > I can give a Johnsonian refutation of the UD. I can't see it,
> >> > no-one can see it, so it ain't there.
> >> Standard comp says nothing about Plato's Platonism, but once you take
> >> the digitalness seriously enough, and CT, it is just standard computer
> >> science.
> > That is never going to get you further than mathematical existence.
> > You still need the futher step of showing mathematical existence is
> > ontological RITISAR existence.
> So you would accept to be turned into a program as long as you're
> running on a physical implementation... ok it's fair enough. My
> question is *in that precise case*... What are you ? the program
> written in whatever language it was written ? the functionnaly
> equivalent program written in brainfuck ? the same written in the
> machine language of the physical machine you're running on ? the
> bytecode that would be JIT in a VM ? the transistor of the physical
> machine ?
> What IS RITSIAR when you'll be digitalized ?
Whatever combination of hardware and software I am in
fact running on. Juggling combinations of h/w and s/w is not
going to make me immaterial.
> If you're running, and I suspend the program ? Do *you* still exists ?
> If I restart it ? Do you still exists ?
> If I never restart it do you
> still exists ?
>If I destroy every copy of the program that is you do
> you still exists ?
> >> See "conscience & mécanisme" appendices for snapshot of a running
> >> mathematical DU. It exists mathematically. But it can be implemented
> >> "materially" , i.e. relatively to our most probable computations too.
> > So? It hasn't been.
> >> >> Fregean sense is enough to see
> >> >> that those Peter Jones would correctly (if you are correct) prove
> >> >> that
> >> >> they are material, when we know (reasoning outside the UD) than they
> >> >> are not.
> >> > So? That doesn't man I am wrong, because it doesn't mean I am in
> >> > the UD. The fact that we can see that a BIV has false beliefs
> >> > doesn't make us wrong
> >> > about anything.
> >> This is not the point. The point is that if you develop a correct
> >> argumentation that you are material, and that what we "see" around us
> >> is material, then the arithmetical P. Jone(s) will also find a correct
> >> argumentation that *they* are material, and that what they see is
> >> material.
> > So? If you develop a correct argument that you are running on a
> > computer
> > when actually you are a BIV, then the BIV you will come up with that
> > argument too. Any argument whatsoever can be undermined by a sceptical
> > hypothesis, and there are many.
> >> The problem is that if you are correct in "our physical
> >> reality" their reasoning will be correct too, and false of course. But
> >> then your reasoning has to be false too.
> >> The only way to prevent this consists in saying that you are not
> >> Turing-emulable, or that you just don't know if you are in the UD or
> >> not.
> > The way to prevent it is the same way that all sceptical hypotheses
> > are prevented. You just note that there is not a scrap of evidence
> > for them. The only upshot of scepticism is that there is no
> > certainty, and we have to argue for the position of the greatest
> > plausibility.
> >>At this stage.
> >> Then with step-8, you "know", relatively to the comp act of faith,
> >> that you are already there. If you say yes to the doctor, you can bet,
> >> from computer science that you are already in the (N,x,+) matrix.
> > I can't be "in" something that has merely mathematical existence, any
> > more than I can be "in" Nanrnia
> So you can't be a program...
So I *can* be a runnign programme. I *can't* be abstract software.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at