On 16 Jun 2013, at 19:20, meekerdb wrote:

## Advertising

On 6/16/2013 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:Most are just dualist. They are indeed easily shown inconsistent.But the problem is not the absence of mind, it is the believe in aprimary physical reality, which is not sustained by any evidences.?? What's the evidence arithmetic is primary? The only evidence fora theory is that it works.

`No, it does not work. It fails since a long time on the mind-body`

`problem, or it eliminates first person experiences and persons. It`

`assumes also what I am trying to understand, the appearance of matter,`

`and when I say that there are no evidences, I mean it: there are`

`evidences for a physical reality, but *primitive* matter is like`

`ether, phlogiston, or N rays: nobody has been able to provide`

`evidences. It is just a simplifying assumption, and it is not used in`

`any book of physics, even if it is assumed implicitly in some`

`"fundamental physics". Don't confuse physics and physicalism.`

`The fact that Arithmetic or Turing-equivalent might be primary are`

`overwhelming. First we don't have arithmetic, computer (the math`

`object) or anything like that without assuming it. Second it is`

`assumed in all pieces of any "exact science or human science", then we`

`experience it everyday. We teach it without problem in all schools,`

`etc. It is the only piece of knowledge on which all humans already`

`agree (except a minority of philosophers, but they are easily shown`

`inconsistent).`

You seem to criticize primary physical reality because it doesn'tinclude a more fundamental theory showing that it's primary - butthat would a contradiction.

`Indeed. I criticize primary physical reality for the same reason that`

`atheists are right when criticizing the use of God as explanation.`

`Primitive matter explains nothing. And then it prevents the search for`

`rational explanations.`

Whatever the most fundamental model is cannot have a justificationshowing it is fundamental.

`That's not correct. Arithmetic or Turing-equivalent theories can`

`explain entirely why we cannot get the axioms from less. You can prove`

`in arithmetic that without the arithmetical axioms you don't get them.`

`You can prove in arithmetic that Pressburger arithmetic (addition, but`

`no multiplication) is decidable and complete (in the GĂ¶del 1930`

`sense). So you can prove in arithmetic that the fundamental theory is`

`arithmetic or a consistent extension of arithmetic. Then with comp you`

`can prove that we don't need to extend it for the ontology, and that`

`from inside, you need and get *all* consistent exttension, leading to`

`a many-world, or many-dreams, account of what we live.`

`Primitive matter is just a notion extrapolated from quite local`

`perceptions. It is like "the earth is flat". It works for architects,`

`but not for sailors and space explorers.`

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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.