On 2 July 2014 06:24, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > Although I think comp is an interesting theory and worthy of study, I > think I look at it differently than Bruno. I look at it as just another > mathematical model, one whose ontology happens to be computations. I think > Bruno assumes the ontology first, notes that it can 'explain everything' - > and then sets out to see if 'everything' can be pared down to what appears. >
To be fair Bruno claims to be agnostic about comp. I imagine it's hard to construct a TOE that *doesn't* start by assuming an ontology that looks as though it can 'explain everything' (whatever that is assumed to be - in the case of comp it's consciousness plus - allegedly - the physical universe). With comp it's more explicit what the assumed ontology is than in most theories of physics, but only because most theories assume "default materialism" (as already mentioned in other posts ad nauseum) while comp is explicitly making a different set of assumptions. Although I am agnostic* on comp I can see no harm in this, and some potential good. * Bruno often appears to think I'm a materialist, while you often seem to think I'm a "comp-ist" or perhaps something less flattering ... but I've learned many times, and after discussing many subjects with many people, that being assumed to be in the opposite camp is a normal peril of being agnostic :) -- 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.
