On 16 Jun 2013, at 19:20, meekerdb wrote:
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 a
primary physical reality, which is not sustained by any evidences.
?? What's the evidence arithmetic is primary? The only evidence for
a 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't
include a more fundamental theory showing that it's primary - but
that 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 justification
showing 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 Gödel 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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
