On 16 Sep 2009, at 17:25, Flammarion wrote: > > > > On 16 Sep, 15:51, "m.a." <[email protected]> wrote: >> the ocean of virtual particles which may give >> rise to all "real" particles exists somewhere between matter and >> thought. > > I see no reason to believe that > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
You are quite quick on this. There is a tradition in quantum mechanics , with von Neumann, Wigner, Walker, Penrose, and in a sense Heisenberg, Pauli, Fuchs, ... to ascribe to consciousness the ability to collapse the wave, in this case field superpostion of number operator states (in the vaccuum, say). This made essentially the (universal) state function into a (relative) knowledge state. Of course Everettian, a fortioti computationalists, take the indexical view so that they associate the knowledge state with some self- localisation in a multiverse. This can save the knower and the known thing. They do that by realism with respect to the terms used in the language of their theories. Comp provides an explanation where those operators come from 'elementary arithmetic seen from inside), and this in a way which respects the absolute existence of the person and its private experience *and* the stability and *partial* sharability and computability of the appearances. And it predicts the indeterminacies beyond. All that double aspect is explained through the Gödel-Löb- Solovay spliiting between provabilities (and intensional variants) and truth (about them). I think you miss the idea entirely. It is because I don't want to be involved in philosophical issue, that I decided to assume the computationnalist hypothesis so as to translate the mind-body problem into a problem of computer science. Machine theology is the study of the difference between truth and what machine can prove, observe, intuit and infer. You can interpret this formally, if this is how you look at mathematics. AUDA is UDA, for the formalists. Instead of asking *you* to do a thought experiment, I interview a universal machine through the use of its 'guardian angels' G and G*. You postpone the thought experience since the beginning, you may as well focus on the fromal math instead. Machine's theology defines its own physics, and it makes 'formal comp' testable, and that's the point. The least comp does, is to show we can be rationalist and have a conception of reality far nearer to Plato, Plotinus, and many other school in the east, than to Aristotle's primary materialism (shared by some atheists and some christians). But are you able to doubt the existence of primary matter? To conceive another religion or reality conception? Your unwillingness to search for an error in the argument makes me infer that you may be unable to doubt the existence of primary matter. Or are you? 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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
