On 11 Feb 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/11/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947?

Brent-
========.

Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947,
but not ' philosophical progress ' (!).
We still haven't answers to the questiohs:
What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?,
What is the quantum of light ?,
What is an electron?,
What is entropy ?
. . . .  . etc. . . . .etc.
To create new abstraction ( quarks, big-bang, method
of renormalization . . . etc )  is not a progress.

Good. So you might open your mind on the consequences of computationalism. It needs to backtrack on Plato, for the theological/fundamental matter. The physical reality becomes the border of the (Turing) universal mind, in some verifiable way. The Aristotelian *assumption* that there is a physical reality, although fertile, seems to be wrong once we assume consciousness to be invariant for some digital transformation. Eventually it leads to new invariant in physics. Physics does no more depend on the choice of the computational base, notably.

So does comp answer socratus questions?

It provides the only (with comp) path to formulate anew the questions, and get partial answers.

Physics already gives partial answers. A quantum of light and an electron are just things that satisfy certain equations. I think that's as good an answer as comp is going to be able to provide - except comp can't yet even say what the equations are.

The answers given by physics have to assume a relation between fist person and third person which is in contradiction with the computationalist hypothesis (by UDA). So it assumes a non computationalist theory of mind, on which it remains quite vague. And comp gives the equations, with the Z and X logics. Comp does not leave any choice on that matter.

Some physicists don't see equations there, because they are not used to mathematical logic, but the equation and open problems are already there.

Physics gives impressively good local compression of information, but does not address the mind-body problem, and yet, uses implicitly an identity thesis which assume non-comp.

Physics is good on the physical realm, but *physicalism* is just refuted once we assume the brain is a finite machine.

Bruno







Brent


And socratus seems aware of the failure of physics with that respect, so comp might help him (above the fact that to keep physicalism you must assume that we are not Turing emulable).

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to