On 28 Aug 2009, at 10:52, Flammarion wrote:

> On 28 Aug, 08:42, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> On 27 Aug 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
>>> On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>> On 22 Aug 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>> But you see Brent, here you confirm that materialist are  
>>>> religious in
>>>> the way they try to explain, or explain away the mind body  
>>>> problem. I
>>>> can imagine that your consciousness supervene on something
>>>> uncomputable in the universe. But we have not find anything
>>>> uncomputable in the universe, except the quantum indeterminacy, but
>>>> this is the kind of uncomputability predicted by the comp theory  
>>>> (and
>>>> AUDA suggested it is exactly the uncomputable aspect of the  
>>>> universe
>>>> predicted by comp).
>>>> So you are postulating an unknown property of matter just to make  
>>>> the
>>>> comp theory false. This is really a matter-of-the gaps (cf "god-of-
>>>> the
>>>> gaps") use of matter.
>>> No uncomputable property is needed. If it is a fact that consc.
>>> supervenes
>>> directly on matter, then no immaterial machine or virtualisation can
>>> be conscious.
>> OK.
>> But to be honest I have no clue what "matter" can be in that setting,
>> nor what "directly" could possibly mean in "consciousness supervenes
>> *directly* on matter".
>> I think that you are saying or meaning that for a computation to have
>> consciousness, the computation needs to be implemented in a "real
>> material reality", but that is the point which MGA makes
>> epistemologically inconsistant.
>>> That does not prove CTM false, but it does disprove the argument  
>>> that
>>> "if physics is computible, then the CTM is true"
>> We have both "physics is computable" entails "my brain is computable"
>> which entails I can say "yes to the doctor", which entails CTM.
> No we don't for the reasons given.

The reason above concerns immaterial machine. Not material one, like  
in comp alias CTM.
(Then MGA proves that matter emerges from number relation, once we  
assume CTM, but this is not relevant).

Are you really saying that if the laws of physics are computable, then  
we have to say "no" to the doctor? This seems to contradict many  
statements you have made in preceding posts.


>> And we have that "physics is computable" entails CTM is false  
>> (because
>> by UDA, CTM entails that physics cannot be entirely computable, and  
>> it
>> is an open problem if that non computability comes only from what is
>> contingent in the computational histories). The white rabbit can be
>> made *relatively* rare (in QM, or in comp) but can never disappear.
>> Bruno
>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to