On 28 Nov 2012, at 17:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/28/2012 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The question though is how does that happen?
Actually comp is better than physics here. in physics we don't know
why and how electron obey the SWE. It is the ureasonable use of
math in physics. With comp there is only math (arithmetic) and from
this we can explain why numbers develop beliefs (axiomatically
defined) and why they obey apparent laws
So you say. But where is the explanation and the explanation of why
this electron instead of that electron?
Comp provides two type of explanation. Programs (that is number), and
programs 1p expectation when distributed in the UD. Apparently if you
look where an electron is, in some orbital (you know its excitation
level of energy), there will be no explanation of why it is here or
there, by first person indeterminacy on the branches relative to your
knowledge of its energy. Like we can explain why nobody can explain to
the W-man why he is the W-man and not the M-man, in the WM-
duplication. But we can explain the "W and M and not Vienna", by the
program and its local history.
It seems your arguments are all of the form, "If comp is true, then
everything true is explained by comp."
OK, but this in the same sense that if physicalism is true, then
everything true is explained by physicalism.
Yet, when physicalism fails on consciousness, people tend to say, "-
Ah! but this means probably that consciousness is not true", and I
feel like I have better to run away. It is really like changing the
data when the theory is wrong, or changing the people when the tyrant
is tired.
Comp start from consciousness admittance, and then explain matter by
the relation than numbers have with possible truth including
consciousness.
And comp is made very precise by Church thesis, and computer science,
when physicalism still seem unaware of its "assumption" aspect, based
on a rough speculation extrapolated by our animal conception of
reality. Progress has begun when the Greeks depart from that habit, to
take matter for granted, but the bad habit get back through a
simplification of Aristotle imposed by tradition of authorities.
If comp is true everything HAS TO BE explained in arithmetic and
arithmetic only, and with reasonable definitions.
That would be more correct to say.
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.
