On 6/10/2014 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2014, at 19:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2014 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2014 18:24, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 6/8/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
David Nyman gave a much more rigorous definition of primitive materialism in
another thread (he calls it "primordial").
ISTM that what is supposed to be "primordial" about a specific set of
entities and their relations is precisely that they *exclusively*
underlie
(or more correctly, comprise) everything that is "really real". So the
hierarchical structure of everything we observe thereafter - be it
physical,
chemical, biological, physiological, etc. - would be deemed to be
underpinned, exclusively and exhaustively, by such a primordial
substratum.
That's a definition of ur-stuff, but it doesn't say anything about
"material". I
agree with Bruno that saying the most basic ontology is "matter" is
meaningless
because "matter" isn't well defined. Physicists have regarded it as
substances,
particle, fields, quantum fields, strings,... If it's computation or
arithmetic
those are just the basic ontologies of different theories. What's really of
interest is whether the theory can describe and predict what happens at
level of
kicking things and have them kick back.
OK, so please provide a definition of primitive materialism.
Hmmm? I write that "matter" isn't well defined and so you ask that I define "primitive
materialism"?
I guess I could venture that it's the ontology of any TOE in which interactions
are all 3p.
Then with comp, elementary arithmetic is a primitive materialism. That sense seems to me
much too large. Usually primitive matter refer to some "existing" physical reality or
realities.
The very fact that you put scare quotes around "existing" tells me the concept in not well
defined. I think of physics as the science of what we share in experience - i.e. 3p,
excluding things that are 1p only. The theory is that we can share them because we share
a physical world.
Comp offers a spiritual TOE, I would say, where its matter is testable, in the sense
that it needs to gives a knower and an observer in arithmetic, and incompleteness just
guaranties that this happens, for a wide range of reasonable numbers, by showing that
the logic of the philosophical variants of "rational beliefs" does provide the respect
of those conditions, with respect to the physical reality by providing the propositional
logic of the observable.
?? Couldn't parse that.
Brent
Any one can make the comparison, or improves the algorithm I give to search a
distinction (above the fact that the comp QL proves *more* theorems, note).
Bruno
--
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.
