Liz wrote: E.G.: Physical theory with words: "GOD DID IT" - Physical theory with numbers and so on:
I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I certainly don't. Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD? John M On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> under >>>>> physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic). >>>>> This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an >>>>> exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the >>>>> final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one >>>>> or another description of some basic set of underlying physical >>>>> relations. >>>>> >>>>> Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is >>>>> absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter >>>>> from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on >>>>> these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the >>>>> level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for >>>>> by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or >>>>> multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the >>>>> selective logic of its epistemology. >>>>> >>>> ?? Too dense for me. >>>> >>>> I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains, >>>> as >>>> in computers. >>>> >>> I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little >>> flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such >>> a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism >>> still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very >>> point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness >>> of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the >>> distinctively different role that is played by their various >>> conceptual elements. >>> >>> To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively >>> reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle, >>> be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of >>> fundamental entities and relations. >>> >> >> So those fundamental entities can be numbers and the relations can be >> functions in arithmetic? >> >> It appears so, so far, from observation of how physical theories that > work have been constructed. > > E.g. > > Physical theory with words: "GOD DID IT" > > Physical theory with numbers and so on: > > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
