Hi Jason Resch Personally I believe that the physical universe out there is physical, in the traditional sense of the word, and can be characterized for example by physical experiment. So science is fine, as far as it goes.
But what we experience of the physical universe is a psychological or mental construction, so as far as our minds are concerned, it is a phenomenon. >From there on, things get a little tricky. There is a related, hotly contested point of debate which seems to some (but not me) to be a fundamental flaw in Leibniz' metaphysics. Leibniz discarded the atomic view of matter and let it stand that all matter can be divided infinitety many times, so there was nothing finally that one could point to, thus something one could call "real". I am told that the 12 fundamental physical particles cannot be divided so that the divisibility argument above does not work. I would agree, but just change my definition of real, not as some thing one could point to, but the possibility of finding something there to point to. Heisenber's Uncertainty Theorem rules that out, so in the end I agree with Leibniz's conclusion -- that matter is not real. The basis of Leibniz's metaphysics is that, instead, only the monads are real, since they refer to unitary substances and that these substances, taken logically, have no parts. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-13, 11:04:33 Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: William, On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote: The physical universe is purely subjective. That follows from comp in a constructive way, that is, by giving the means to derive physics from a theory of subejectivity. With comp any first order logical theory of a universal system will do, and the laws of physics and the laws of mind are not dependent of the choice of the initial universal system. Bruno, Does the universal system change the measure of different programs and observers, or do programs that implement programs (such as the UDA) end up making the initial choice of system of no?onsequence? Jason -- 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. -- 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.
