On 30 Nov 2013, at 22:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/30/2013 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In fact, materialism cannot explain matter, either. Worst, it
avoids trying to explain it at the start.
It's not worse, it's logic. Whatever is taken as fundamental in a
theory is not something explained in the theory. Your theory takes
numbers and arithmetic for granted.
Computationalism has to take anything Turing universal at the start.
Without something Turing universal, you get no Turing universal
things, and so, numbers+add+mult (or anything recursively equivalent)
is the minimal we need to start with.
But for the physical there is a tradition of doubting that we have to
take it in the basic assumption. it is the debate between Plato and
Aristotle. "Popular religion" is the popular oversimplified (often for
political reason) of Plato.
There is no problem with a physicist taking matter for granted, or
assuming it, even implicitly, when they do physics.
There is a problem with metaphysics, or theology, or philosophy taking
matter for granted, or not assuming it explicitly, because that
becomes a huge lack of rigor, and makes it impossible to understand
that mechanism is incompatible with materialism.
The problem is not with physics, but with implicit physicalism, in a
place where science has just not decided. It is a deny of ignorance,
or an imposition of a dogma.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.