On Monday, March 11, 2013 10:01:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Mar 2013, at 00:57, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, March 10, 2013 5:51:35 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> On 3/10/2013 1:08 PM, spudb...@aol.com wrote: >> >> Question- I also thought determinism mean't that you could predict where >> and when, a particle could move. But that Werner Heisenberg, said that you >> could determine, on, but never the other. Would you say that the universe >> is predictable and Heisenberg might be wrong? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Mitch >> >> >> Determinism doesn't mean that you can predict everything. Determinism >> means the future is completely determined by the past. >> > > Which means that a deterministic universe always begins with a miracle > that is never allowed to happen again. > > > There is no deterministic universe because there is no universe (in the > common Aristotelian sense). >
I don't know that we have to assert an Aristotelian universe to have an expectation of first cause. The universe can just be the idea of the set of all phenomena. If determinism is to mean anything, then its meaning supervenes on an expectation of temporal sequence and an arrow of time. What does it mean that this arrow is itself not subject to any arrow? > > The appearance of a universe "appears" from the average Löbian > arithmetical relation existing in arithmetic. > Why would it though? What if you wanted to generate Löbian arithmetical relations without making a universe appear - like a Thin Client. Suppose you only want the arithmetic and not any kind of appearance? > That explains both qualia and quanta, qualitatively and quantitatively, > and is the only solution available when you bet on computationalism. > I don't think that we can bet on computationalism if we understand the consequences. We would have nothing to bet with and no authority to place a bet. > The only miracles here are that 0+1 = 1, 0*1 = 0, + similar, and that you > stay conscious with an artificial brain. > > In your approach it looks like there are more miracles: the miracle of > sense, the miracle of matter, and the miracle of a non intelligible > relation between both. > You rely on the miracle of sense and the miracle of rigid bodies also, but you don't acknowledge them because they are beneath the threshold of 0, +, 1. =, etc. My approach reveals that if you have the underlying sensory-motor interaction behind +, =, n, etc, then you already have consciousness. Numbers, like musical notes or colors on the spectrum, serve to augment the qualitative richness of sense, not to provide a functional framework. Sense doesn't need numbers, but numbers need sense. Sense *wants* numbers, however, to act as lenses and amplifiers. Sense needs its opposite just as our bodies need a skeleton to lend structure. Your view sees the universality of skeletal structures and presumes that it is the most essential aspect of the organism where I see it as the most existential aspect - least living, most indifferent and unconscious. > And all this to refuse to allow a man with a wounded brain to have a > chance of surviving .... Hmm... > As long as there is some brain left, there is a chance of extending it prosthetically. We could replace every limb on a person's body also, but we can't replace the head. If there is no head left, then there is nothing left to survive. Craig > Bruno > > > > > > > > > Craig > > > >> But in order to use that for prediction you have to know the past as well >> as the time evolution operator. This is impossible for a couple of >> reasons. First, you can only know about the past that is within your past >> light cone. There are things happening on the Sun that you can't know >> about for another eight minutes. If those are things that can influence >> what you're trying to predict then you're out of luck. Second, >> deterministic systems are not necessarily stable, so infinitesimal errors >> in your knowledge of the present state or in the evolution operator can >> result in large errors in prediction. So even if Heisenberg was wrong >> (and there's lots of evidence he wasn't and none that was) the universe >> still wouldn't be predictable. >> >> Brent >> > > -- > 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > 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.
