On Sep 13, 11:28 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is true
> > enough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from the relevant
> > questions: What are 'rules' and where do they come from?
> You are the one assuming some physical reality. But mechanism can  
> explains where such physical rules come from. They are consequences of  
> addition and multiplication. More exactly, their appearances for the  
> average universal machine are consequences of 0, +, and *.

I agree, but I take it another step further to say that addition and
multiplication are themselves the consequences of sense in general.
Everything makes some kind of sense, but not always arithmetic sense.
If it did, then there would be no reason to hide the fact behind
illusory masks of all of the different kinds of perception and

> > How are they
> > enforced? Why would there be a difference between simple and complex
> > to begin with and what makes one lead to the other but not the other
> > way around?
> They are all statically, but logically related.

I understand that, but why does logic or relation work at all?

> Also, why do you make that argument, given that you seem to take for  
> granted electromagnetism, that is Maxwell laws?

I only use electromagnetism as a concrete term to anchor the
correspondence to sensorimotive experience. Really electromagnetism is
a stand in for 'the laws of physics' as I suspect that
electromagnetism properly understood scales up to be the inverse of
gravity and entropy.


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