On 24 Jan 2014, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/24/2014 12:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In your aristotelian theology. But when working on the mind-body
problem, it is better to abandon all prejudices on this. Indeed
with comp, it is the concrete laptop which appears as an
(unconscious preprogrammed) idealization.
Of course I'd say reifying arithmetic is a prejudice.
No need in reifying it. You need just to believe in their truth.
For some people, like Hardy, the number 8 is more concrete that the
planets you can count. Our brain makes us believe the contrary, but
he uses a complex universal machine to fail us on this.
Yes I appreciate this viewpoint. Actually I'm pretty agnostic about
what's really real. At any given time it's the ontology of our best
theory; where "best" is not sharply defined but is measured by some
mixture of predictive power, consilience, scope, definiteness, and
accuracy.
OK.
Comp is great on scope and maybe on definiteness, but it seems very
weak on the other measures.
I am not sure. If comp is correct, and if there is no flaw in UDA,
comp predicts the existence of physical laws. I don't know of any
other theory doing that. And it is constructive, we get already the
quantum logic, and they have to define the whole measure, by the UDA.
It is fuzzy on the precise frontier between geography and physics, but
it explains at least the difference, which is not even existing in
physics, except by a vague inference. Comp explains the maning of "aw"
in "physical laws".
That's why I keep hoping you'll be able to come up with some
surprising testable prediction.
It is really a question of making people understanding the S4Grz, X
and Z logics. The math is there. Just technical difficulties, to sum
up. It is for the next generation.
This is just standard science. It's not some Aristotelean
prejudice. It's the same thing we ask of string theory and loop-
quantum-gravity.
You mention that you think octonion Hilbert space will be found to
be more fundamental than complex Hilbert space. Of course many
people have speculated that quaternions or octonions will be more
fundamental, but nothing definite has been predicted. So if comp
showed that the octonions were necessary that would be quite
convincing.
Unfortunately my intuition does not come from comp, here. I would have
like that too, but now, that would be wishful thinking.
But you should understand that we have no choice. If comp is correct,
and if we don't put consciousness under the rug, the *whole* of
physics is a theorem in arithmetic, concerning what any universal
machine can predict from any of its states (even in simulation). Comp
gives new strong invariants for physics: the choice of phi_i, and the
choice of the observer in the phi_i.
That's the main point: an explanation that no theory of consciousness
can avoid a derivation of the physical reality appearances from
arithmetic or equivalent.
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.
