On Jul 5, 10:06 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 04 Jul 2011, at 21:55, meekerdb wrote:
> > On 7/4/2011 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> The mathematical science is certainly not causally inert. Without
> >> math, no chips, no internet, no man on the moon, etc.
> > But the form of argument, "Without X we wouldn't have Y, therefore X
> > caused Y." is invalid.
> Agreed. But the notion of cause is not the notion of implication. I
> was just saying that the use of human mathematics was responsible for
> the acceleration of progress. The mathematical discovery of logarithms
> has multiplied the travel distances. The existence of mathematics
> change the world. And not just human mathematics. Any brain already
> exists by virtue of some mathematical, representational, machine to
> emulate other machine, leading to relative self-acceleration.
> I can understand that a materialist can still believe that the
> mathematical reality does not act physically on our reality, but
> mathematics acts, in that respect, by allowing the physical to obeys
> mathematical laws, and some of those laws, to make sense, assume
> primitive arithmetical law. The basic intuition of number is the idea
> that we can distinguish something from something else.
If I understand you correctly, this would mean that all physical
matter, forces and energies are actually encoded with the same
mathematical rules that the brain/mind/consciousness distinguishes
using mathematics. Then would not brain/mind/consciousness itself be
subject to the same rules? Are you stating that the rules (laws)
themselves have some kind of dispositional property (like a magnet
with positive and negative attraction poles)?
> > Consider, without space we wouldn't have gone to the Moon, therefore
> > space caused us to go to the Moon.
> The point is that space makes it possible, to start with.
> > If you stretch causes to include everything that must have been the
> > case for Y to happen then you end up with a meaningless plethora of
> > causes: The universe caused Y.
> Addition and multiplication "causes" the belief in universes and
> universe. The 8 'hypostases' from God (Arithmetical truth) to Matter
> (what is sigma_1, provable, consistent, and true).
> >> And from inside the computationalist mindscape, the dynamics emerge
> >> as internal (arithmetical) indexicals. But this is the fate of any
> >> TOE, or better ROE (realm of everything, the theories themselves
> >> only scratches the surface).
> >>> Yet it's existence is debatable and it's certainly interesting to
> >>> discuss. And in any case, the elan vital was endlessly debate for
> >>> centuries and was eventually discarded as nonexistent.
> >> Like mechanism justifies that the "material force" will be
> >> discarded as non existent, but explainable in term of number
> >> theoretical relations (coherent number's beliefs).
> > Forces are explainable by many things. I'll be more impressed when
> > you predict one.
> It will take time before we get something like F = ma or the Feynman
> integral, especially if people don't search. My point is only that it
> is the only way to explain force without making the qualia disappear,
> or without violating the comp principle, or without putting
> consciousness under the rug.
> The point is not to submit a "new" physics, just a translation of a
> problem into another problem, (complex, but purely mathematical). The
> understanding of the arithmetical origin of the physical laws might
> help to avoid senseless question.
> Physics is very mathematical by itself, and has already palpable
> relation with number theory. An application of the bosonic string
> theory = To prove the four squares theorem in number theory!
> The distribution of prime numbers might emulate a sort of quantum
> computer. Even without comp, I find rather natural that the physical
> laws expresses internally observable number symmetries. It might be
> that the theory of finite simple groups is at play. But justifying
> this by using the self-reference logics allows us to take into account
> the first person perspectives of the relative numbers, and it should
> explain the winning symmetries by a measure argument. Meanwhile it
> gives a different (non aristotelician picture of the "ontological
> everything" (I will called that the realm, or the ROE, the ontology of
> the everything).
> Now we can like that, dislike that. Take time to swallow, I don't
> know. Comp might be false. We have to keep this in mind. Comp might be
> true with a very low substitution level. The level could be so low
> that it is virtually very similar to materialism (and in practice it
> makes the digitalist doctor inexistant).
> What I do like in comp, and in the universal machine discourse, it the
> theory of virtue (the type Dt). It is really a sort of vaccine about
> the argument by authority. It makes the universal machine a sort of
> universal dissident. *you* are your own best guru, if you look twice
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at