2011/12/8 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: > >> > >> You smuggled in your own opinion through the backdoor (only my > >> favorite > >> mystery is acceptable). > > > > This is only a negative ad hominem insult. Frankly I prefer your > > enthusiast tone of your earlier posts. > > > I am not insulting you, I am just stating what you did. You invoke an > "occams razor", which actually has nothing to do with eliminating > complicated theories (since "it is just mysterious" is not complicated at > all), and is really your opinion of what alternatives are acceptable. > You elimimate the primary mystery of matter and/or consciousness, but > abitrarily keep the mystery of computations. > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Quentin and Brent(*), and myself, have patiently debunked your > > "refutation". You might just ask for explanation if you still miss the > > point. > Sorry, you are patiently avoiding my point and claim to have debunked it. > That's a bit unfair. > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > . > > With Occam, we can't eliminate the mystery. > > > > Occam eliminates only the ad hoc hypothesis used for making a theory > > wrong. Occam eliminates the collapse of the wave packet, for example, > > because the collapse is made only to make QM false when applied to the > > observers. (To avoid many realities). > > > > Likewise Occam eliminates primitive matter if the appearance of matter > > can be (or has to be) explained in a conceptual simpler theory. And my > > point is double: > > > > 1) if we assume comp then it has to be the case that arithmetic (or > > combinator, ...) is the simpler theory. (UDA) > > > > 2) This can be verified (making comp testable) by deriving physics > > from a translation of UDA in the language of a universal number. > > (AUDA). Then you can compare that physics with the observation > > inferred physics. > You miss the most simple possibility that primitive matter/consciousness > don't work according to any theory, but to some more fundamental > untheoretical principle. >
The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital computer) is not compatible with materialism. It shows that to be able to predict your next moment (if computationlism is true) then the primitive material world is of no use (if there is one). Computationalism can be false, but the argument is not about it being true, it is about considering it true and see the implications. > You can't eliminate that, and your theory can't derive that principle, > either. And no, that is not unreasonable, since the very axioms of math > don't work according to any theory, either. > > benjayk > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/The-consciousness-singularity-tp32803353p32934738.html > Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.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. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.