Hi Bruno Marchal and all, 

Consider this analogy to the mind/body problem. Let  the body or quanta
speak only french and  the mind or qualia speak only english.
Then neither group is capable of understanding the other group,
but each group is able to communicate perfectly among themselves 
in their own language.

In order to get anything done, the french hire a translator (we'll call
him Leibniz) who


1)  translates each quanta (english) statement into 
qualia (french),

2)  let's them figure out a proper response in french, using
proper french grammar, 

3) then translates that response into english, 
using proper english grammar, which he  

4) then relates that translated response to the english.


This is how the metaphysics of Leibniz can be used
to properly treat mind/body issues.

Currently the materialists ignore the language barrier
and speak english to the french, who do not understand
them, and the english them invent what the french must
be saying, etc.


This is nonsense. Instead, qualia must be discussed
 by qualia in qualia language, and quanta in quanta language, 
and communication between them done by a translator.

In Leibniz's metaphysics, the translation is done by 
callling each part of the material world a substance,
then translating the qualities and attributes of the
material world into the monads of the mind world,
performing actions and understanding things 
properly in the language and grammar of the mind,
then doing the reverse translation into body language
to understand the result.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/25/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-24, 12:19:25
Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology


On 23 Aug 2012, at 03:21, Stephen P. King wrote:

> Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. It is 
> left as an "open problem"


The body problem?

I address this directly as I show how we have to translate the body 
problem in a pure problem of arithmetic, and that is why eventually we 
cannot postulate anything physical to solve the mind body problem 
without losing the quanta qualia distinction. Again this is a 
conclusion of a reasoning.

And AUDA is the illustration of the universal machine tackles that 
problem, and this gives already the theology of the machine, including 
its propositional physics (the logic of measure one).


> There is really only one major disagreement between Bruno and I and 
> it is our definitions of Universality. He defines computations and 
> numbers are existing completely seperated from the physical and I 
> insist that there must be at least one physical system that can 
> actually implement a given computation.

This is almost revisionism. I challenge you to find a standard book in 
theoretical computer science in which the physical is even just 
invoked to define the notion of computation.

Most notion of physical implementations of computation use the 
mathematical notion above. Not the contrary. Deutsch' thesis is not 
Church's thesis.

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 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.

Reply via email to