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 [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.
