Hi Bruno Marchal 

There are at least three forms or levels of meaning:

1) Meaning learned from experience 

2) The experience of meaning

3) Meaning learned from description. 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-14, 14:51:52
Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain

On 14 Sep 2012, at 15:32, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 9/14/2012 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Roger Clough wrote: 

Hi Bruno Marchal and meekerdb, 

ROGER:  Hi meekerdb 

First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so 
it only works with half a brain. 

MEEKERDB [actually it is BRUNO]: Bad decision. You are the one cutting the 
"corpus callosum" here. 

ROGER: You have to. Quantity is an objective measure, quality is a subjective 
Apples and oranges. 

You are too much categorical. Qualities can have objective features too. Modal 
logic, and other non standard logic are invented for that purposes. 
Geometry and topology can have non quantitative features, also. 

Dear Bruno,

    This concept of "objective property" is just consistency of definition, 
nothing more!

Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category. 

Model theory studies a form of meaning. If you decide that something is not 
scientific, you make it non scientific. 

    If it is incapable of being falsified by physical evidence then it is 

I agree.

So science 
can neither make nor understand meaningful statements. 
Logic has the same fatal problem. 

Only if you decide so. 

    No, that would be "true belief" as Alberto discussed elsewhere. If one 
accepts as true some set of axioms then certain properties follow 
automatically. But if we look at theories in a "meta" way, we see that there 
are multiple possible axioms. For example, we have ZFC and ZF-C (with or 
without axiom of choice). These have very different models.

And the fatal problem is?

BRUNO ?: Not at  all. Logic handle both syntactical or digital transformations, 
and its 
"dual" the corresponding semantical adjoint transformation. There is proof 
theory and model theory. 
Meaning is handle by non syntactical mathematical structures. There are many 
branches in 
logic, and semantic, alias Model Theory, is one of them. 

ROGER: Those are all tools for working with objective data such as numbers or 
written words. 

Not at all. Model studies infinite structure, some of them have no syntactical 
or finite counterparts. 

    You are ignoring the existence of finitistic and ultrafinitistic axioms! 
Maybe we need to revisit model theory.

No. Comp is finitistic. And of course not ultra-finitistic. 

Then what do you do with subjective data ? Obviously you must throw it out. 

On the contrary, even with just the UDA, consciousness is the basic notion at 
the base of the whole reasoning (which annoys of course those who want to keep 
it under the rug). You are either a bit unfair, or ignorant of the UDA. 
Its role consists in showing that the subjective data and the 3p stuff are not 
easily reconciled with comp, as we must explain the physical 3p, from coherence 
condition on the subjective experience related to computations. 

    We need some reason to believe that just because I have a subjective 
experience of "being in the world" that this implies that this is possible for 
other entities. Chalmer's argues for panprotopsychism, the theory that 
everything has subjective experience and qualia,

Every thing? I thought we are searching the things.

but does not seem to offer a hypothesis as to how. I offer (reasoning with 
Vaughan Pratt) a theory that psychism follows from Stone duality, but this 
limits subjectivity to the duality between Boolean algebras (up to isomorphism) 
and topological spaces (up to isomorphism).

An that might be coherent with comp. You study Pratt, so it is your work to do 
that. I gave you hints.

BRUNO To separate science from religion looks nice, but it consists in 
encouraging nonsense in religion, and in science eventually. 

ROGER: Religion deals mainly with subjective issues such as values. morality, 
salvation, forgiveness. 
These are inextended or nonphysical human/divine issues. 

Yes, but that does not mean we cannot handle them with the scientific method. 
If not you would not even been arguing. 

    It is ironic that you are taking this side of the debate, Bruno! You, in 
your theory, have reduced to a epiphenomena the very thing that allows for 

Here you miss the entire point. I show comp testable, on the contrary. And 
partially tested.

The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, but as a manual oof faith 
and moral practice. 


    Sam Harris makes a good argument for this.

Science deals entirely with objective issues such as facts, quantity, numbers, 
physical data. 

If you decide so, but then religious people should stop doing factual claims, 
and stop proposing normatible behavior. 
Science can study its own limitations, and reveal what is beyond itself. Like 
in neoplatonism, science proposes a negative theology, protecting faith from 
blind faith, actually. 

    I.e. "true belief". I agree.

BRUNO: Science cannot answer the religious question, nor even the human 
nor even the machine question, but it *can* reduce the nonsense. 

ROGER: You can try, which is what atheists do. 

No atheists have a blind faith in a primary universe. They are religious, 
despite they want not to be. A scientist aware of the mind-body problem can 
only be agnostic, and continue the research for more information. Atheists are 
Christian, as John Clark illustrates so well. 

    I agree.

As I say, there are a few errors in facts in the Bible. 

Yes, like PI = 3. 

    There is good evidence that the ancient Egyptians used PI = 22/7, so the PI 
= 3 claim is inexcusable. Perhaps this was a typo that was continued in the 
hand copying of the Bible.

It was most probably a rough approximation. PI is roughly equal to 3. That's no 
so bad.

But physics and chemistry have no capabability of dealing with meaning, value, 
morality, salvation, etc. 

OK. Like electronics cannot explain the Deep Blue chess strategy. But computer 
science explains Deep Blue strategy, and it explains already why there is 
something like meaning, value, morality, salvation. Computer science deals with 
immaterial entity, developing discourse on many non material things, including 
knowledge, meaning, etc. 

    We have to consider multiple levels of explanation.

As I said, you are the one defending a reductionist conception of machine, 
confusing them with "nothing but" their appearances. 


    But you are not innocent of fault, Bruno. You stand accused of defending a 
immaterialist conception of machine that completely discounts (physical) 

You miss the point. I defend nothing, I deduce.

You are taking universality too far.

I use Church thesis. That's all.

I contend that universality is the independence of computations to any 
particular machine 

That's functionalism, and is implied trivially by comp.

but there must be at least one physical system that can implement a given 
computation for that computation to be knowable. 

This is logically impossible. that follows non trivially from comp, as 
explained in the UDA.

This is just a accessibility question, in the Kripke sense of accessible worlds.

You mix technical math with avoidance of doing the simpler technic of UDA. 
That's 1004.

You are suing philosophy to avoid studying a reasoning, I'm afraid. You should 
use your philosophy to isolate the flaw instead, or refine your philosophy.

As Brent say, it is part of my goal to get an idea where the physical laws come 
from, and your fuzzy "existence" is not a theory. if you agree that matter is 
not primitive why are you astonished it can arise from numbers as we know they 
are Turing universal, so that with comp we have already the coherent or not 

You lost me,





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 
For more options, visit this group at 


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to