On 10 Nov 2012, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/10/2012 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

You take as a weakness of comp the fact that it reduce the mind- body problem to a body problem, but it is its main qualitative advantage, as it explains how and where the physical laws can come from, and this in a testable way, making comp scientific (Popperian).

But I don't see the explanation of how and where. It seems your conclusion is only that it *must* come from numbers - because otherwise there is a flaw in you argument. It's not a constructive argument.

UDA reduces physics into (the search of) a measure on the computations, as seen from a first person perpective. Eventually this gives the propositional logic of physics, by being the logic of the measure one events, which by UDA have to be, when written in arithmetic, the sigma_1 necessary, and consistent propositions, featured by the Bp & Dt (& p) propositions in arithmetic (with p sigma_1).

The argument UD is partially constructive, but the AUDA is completely constructive, if you accept the classical theory of knowledge. It leads to complex mathematical questions, alas, but the contrary would have been suspect.

Bruno






Brent

--
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 .

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.

Reply via email to