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 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