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)?
Thanks
Pzomby

> > 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  
> (inward).
>
> Bruno
>
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to