On 02 Jul 2012, at 20:21, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs and
people and numbers,
Chairs and people are also mathematical objects, just really
complex ones with a large information content. This is the
necessary conclusion of anyone who believes physical laws are
mathematical.
No, it's a necessary conclusion of anyone who cannot distinguish a
description from the thing described.
I think the identity of indiscernibles applies: If no distinction
can ever be made (by observers within a mathematical universe and
observers within a physical universe) then there is no distinction.
You are using "physical" as an honorific, but it adds no information.
I agree, but Brent's remark was not instrumentalist, but metaphysical.
For some reason he seems to want physics being fundamental, and even
if we cannot distinguish physical and mathematical universe, the
distinction can still make sense in abstracto.
But with comp we have really no choice. We can give a role of matter,
in the observation of matter, only by making the mind non Turing
emulable.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
