On 22 Mar 2014, at 19:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Continued...
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:54:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2014, at 19:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 21, 2014 4:44:20 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2014, at 02:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I don't think logic can study reality, only truncated maps of maps
of reality.
Whatever is reality, it might not depend on what you think it is, or
is not.
Of course, but it might not depend on logic or computation either.
It depends on the theory we assume.
I do. That's why I insist that comp asks for a non trivial leap of
faith, and we are warned that comp might be refuted. Without the
empirical evidences for the quantum and MWI, I am not sure I would
dare to defend the study of comp. It *is* socking and counter-
intuitive.
It's not shocking at all to me. For me it's old news.
Not to me, and I don't take anything for granted. I assume comp,
and this includes elementary arithmetic, enough to explain Church's
thesis.
I don't take arithmetic for granted.
Then you have no tools to assert non-comp.
Why not? I assert sense. Computation need not even exist in theory.
Computation arises intentionally as an organizational feature -
just as it does on Earth: to keep track of things and events.
Question begging.
If an explanation falls out of the hypothesis, why is it question
begging?
Because it does not justify at all why comp has to be wrong. It
justifies only that comp might be wrong, and is unbelievable, but this
is already derivable from comp.
What is shocking and counter-intuitive is that the nature of
consciousness is such that there is a very good reason why
consciousness is forever incompatible with empirical evidence.
Again, you talk like Brouwer, the founder of intuitionism (and a
solipsist!), also a great guy in topology. Well, the easiest way to
attribute a person to a machine (theaetetus) provides S4Grz, (the
logic of []p & p) which talks like Brouwer too, and identify
somehow truth and knowledge, and makes consciousness out of any 3p
description.
Truth and knowledge, []p & p...these things are meaningless to me.
All I care about is what cares. Truth and knowledge care for nothing.
I was beginning to suspect this. But then why still argue?
Because consciousness is what cares.
Truth or knowledge of consciousness only can make sense of this.
Consciousness includes knowledge of itself by definition.
No, that self-consciousness.
And you are right on this, again. It *is* a theorem of comp.
I hope you try to follow the modal thread, as it will help you to
put sense on that last sentence. But there is some amount of work
to do, and you have to be willing to change your mode of arguing,
going from your []p & p to the usual "scientific and 3p" []p.
I think that it's you who should try paddling away from the shallow
waters of modal logic and truth and surf the big waves of sense.
Why do you judge something shallow, and at the same time confess
not studying this. It makes you look rather foolish, and wipe o
I'm not trying to be an expert in sailing to China from Italy. I'm
trying to show whoever is interested that there is another
continent or two in the way.
The other continents has been found, and you don't need to invoke
sense other than at the metalevel. If not, what you do is the
persisting hulman error to invoke God in science. It cannot work.It
makes science into pseudo-religion.
It has nothing to do with God or religion for me.
I said that your use of sense is like the use of god, in the gap-god
type of explanation. You use "sense" to forbid the study of some
theory. You justify "don't ask" by invoking a private feature.
It's about grounding physics and mathematics in aesthetic sense.
This does help explain ideas of God and religion, but that is
completely optional. I find your fear and prejudice toward this
possibility interesting.
I am open to the possibility, so you are wrong. But I wait for
evidences or justification, but the way you proceed confirms it is
only a prejudice, which unfortunately makes you not studying the
domain. So you are just stucking yourself in some (negative) personal
opinion. That is hardly convincing. Sorry.
You introduce many relevant differences and nuances, but apply them
only to humans, and forget them despite I try to explain that machines
already do these distinctions. But you don't listen to them invoking
that you have already made your opinion, so ... well, you build your
own mental prison.
Bruno
Craig
Bruno
Craig
...
--
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
