6 6 6 !!!!! Boo!
Actually, The numerical number of God reminds me of some of the writings of Clifford Pickover, so sort of half-believes in his math magic. 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 -----Original Message----- From: John Mikes <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Jun 14, 2014 10:37 am Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE 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. -- 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.
