On 28 May 2014, at 04:36, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 14:12, <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to
segue into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to
show that either his premises or his argument is wrong...
I don't agree with you about that, but for point of order, I haven't
gone down that road anyway. He's wrong about falsification. I did
try to drop it. I shall probably try again.
Bruno may well be wrong about falsification. I haven't tried to
follow the arguments you and he have had on the subject, or not very
much. I know Bruno has said he does have a theory of everything,
which is subject to falsification... which it seems to me is an
awful lot to derive from the idea that consciousness arises from
computation ...
Just to make this more precise, the starting idea is not really that
consciousness arises from a computation, but more that consciousness
is invariant for the change of universal machines below its local
machine substitution level.
but I guess some relatively simple idea can sometimes lead to a huge
theory ...
Yes.
maybe when (or if) I get to grips with the MGA and the logic
involved in deriving some features of physics from comp, I might
have something more sensible to say on the matter,
Do you understand that the reversal occurs at step seven, if you
accept the protocol?
In step seven, we have already the basic shape of the physical laws:
they have to be a statistic (a mean of quantifying uncertainty) on all
computations going through "your state" (defined indexically with
Gödel's/Kleene's method, cf Dx =: 'xx' => DD =: 'DD').
Of course, a physicalist can still save the identity mind-brain link
by making the physical universe "small" (= without concrete UD running
in it forever).
But already at this stage, the move seems to be motivated only by
avoiding looking at a possible (and testable) explanation of the
origin of the physical laws, and such a move does not solve neither
the problem of consciousness, nor the problem of matter. So step 8,
despite its intrinsic interest, is used in the UDA only for the
nitpicking mind who believe such move can make sense "rationally";
Step 8 shows that it endows the primitive matter with magical
properties, whose role in both matter and consciousness has to be made
magical on purpose. It makes primitive matter isomorphic to a god-of-
the-gap, and here it is made to avoid a problem whose testable
solution would solve the mind-body problem, or refute comp (assuming
we are not dreaming or in an emulation).
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.
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.
