On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:26, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You recently allude to a disagreement between us, but I
(meta)disagree with such an idea: I use the scientific method,
which means that you cannot disagree with me without showing a
precise flaw at some step in the reasoning.
You seem to follow the seven first steps, so that in particular you
grasp apparently that COMP + ROBUST-UNIVERSE entails the reversal
physics/arithmetic, and the explanation why qualia and quanta
separate. Are you sure you got this? Step 8 just eliminates the
"ROBUST-UNIVERSE" assumption in step 7.
Dear Bruno,
I claim that step 8 is invalidated by the fact that you must use
the physical medium to interact (communicate) the abstract concept.
If we take step 8 literally, this would not occur and thus obtain a
contradiction. You seem to not realize the price that you must pay
for immaterialism.
To invalidate a step in a proof, you must mention what is not valid in
the derivation. Here you just introduce a statement without proof, nor
definition (your statement that we have to use a primary physical
medium to interact), and you avoid the reasoning. This is not a valid
use of philosophy in science. You might refute the theory of evolution
by saying that it is quite well, and that it explains well how birds
and plants evolves, but that it fails miserably to explain how God
made the world in six days.
The work shows that immaterialism is the price for computationalism.
The price of immaterialism itself is the object of the whole
reasoning: to extract the appearance of a physical medium without
assuming a physical medium.
At first it looks simple, as Tegmark and Schmidhuber proposal might
suggest, given that physical realities, with interacting bodies are
easy to show to exist in arithmetic (take for example the program
emulating the SWE of the galaxy). But it is part of the work to show
that such explanation omit the first person indeterminacy, and so
can't work, as we have to justify the relative stability, from the
first person point of view, with respect to the comp multiplication of
computations, a priori different from QM. But the logic of self-
reference gives the constraints which are needed, and the rest is math
and physics, to test the comp hypothesis.
Bruno
--
Onward!
Stephen
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
--
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
.
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.
