Bruno Marchal <> wrote:

>>  however we don't know that there is a explanation for everything,
>> some things might be fundamental.
> > In the case of elementary arithmetic, we can even explain why we
> cannot explain it by something more fundamental. There are logical
> reason for that. But this is not the case for matter and consciousness,
> which admit an explanation from arithmetic.

But even if numbers are fundamental that does not mean there could not be
other things that are also fundamental, an obvious example would be
Turing's non-compatible numbers; integers and other computable numbers may
be able to figure out that non-computable numbers must exist just as
Turing's mind figured it out, but computable numbers can not explain them,
they can not derive them, they can not calculate them. Something similar
might be the case with consciousness, computable numbers can figure out
that intelligent behavior produces consciousness but they don't and can
never know why.

And with a mind that operates by computable numbers there might be no way
to explain, no way to prove, that these other things are fundamental even
though its true they are in fact fundamental.  This I think may be the case
with consciousness but it's just a hunch and obviously I can never prove
it; but if its true but can't be proven then people will always be looking
for a theory that explains consciousness but they will always fail because
there is no explanation in existence to find.

>>  I have a hunch that consciousness is fundamental and it's just the way
>> data feels like when it's being processed;
> > Then it is not fundamental, and you have to search an explanation why
> some data, when processed, can lead to consciousness.

To be more complete, I think that consciousness is the way data feels like
when it's processing causes intelligent behavior. Certainly that idea
proved to be enormously successful for evolution, despite the handicap of
not being able to see consciousness any better than we can it managed to
produce at least one conscious being, me, and probably more, you're
probably conscious too. It managed to do this because although Evolution
can not see consciousness it can certainly see

> If you define consciousness by the undoubtable belief in at least one
> reality [...]

A belief is a conscious acceptance that something is true, and a conscious
acceptance that something is true is a belief, and round and round we go. I
don't even try to define consciousness anymore because all the definitions
I have ever dreamed up suck . So instead I just give examples, or rather a
example, me.

> You seem here to have difficulties to conceive that Aristotle primary
> matter hypothesis might be wrong.

No not at all, I don't insist that matter is at the bottom of everything
and in fact I think you are right and that numbers are fundamental, it's
just that I'm far less certain than you that they are the only thing that
is fundamental. And there may be things that are NOT fundamental and so are
made of other parts (parts like numbers for example) but there is no way to
prove that to be the case, no way to prove they are not fundamental. And
there may be things that ARE fundamental and thus have no parts but there
is no way to prove that to be the case, no way to prove they are
fundamental. That is to say although numbers cause it there is no way for
those same numbers to prove that they cause it. Consciousness may be in
this category.

>>  It would mean a event without a cause and I don't see why that is
>> more illogical that a event with a cause.
> > An event without a cause/reason, is no better than creationism. It is
> a way of saying "don't ask", unless you can explain why it has to be so

That "unless" in the above is very important, however it very well could be
that there are some events without a cause and you can't explain why and
you will never be able to explain why because there is no explanation as to
why it is but it is nevertheless. I don't like that fact any better than
you do but the universe does not care what our opinions are on the subject.

> Everett is wrong here. because, by UDA, once you postulate comp (as
> Everett does practically) we are not living in physical universes.

It does not matter (pun intended), we may not be living in a physical
universe but the physics of that universe could still be important to us.
You me and our entire universe might be part of a virtual reality program
running on a Mega-computer, but whatever the laws of physics are in that
other universe that the Mega-computer is situated in they must be such that
computation is possible. So why do we virtual beings observe that the
Schrodinger Wave Equation rules our universe? Perhaps because the it also
rules in the maker of the Mega-computer's universe and so they set up their
simulation in the same way; that's what we do, we try hard to make our
simulations obey the same laws of physics as the world we live in. Or
perhaps the Mega-computer makers tried out many different equations and we
just happen to be living in the Schrodinger universe/simulation.

> This leads to a simpler theory of everything than QM, for example
> elementary arithmetic.  The theory of everything becomes:  [The Peano
> Postulates]  In that theory QM (swe) is false or redundant.

The Schrodinger Wave Equation does not seem to be false, redundant maybe
but you've got a bit of work ahead of you to show that to be the case, to
derive the movements of electrons from nothing but pure dimensionless

John K Clark


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to