On 30 Mar 2015, at 13:31, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Best guess on my part. Platonia produces physicalism
Well, you mean produces the appearance of a physical world (not: the
appearance that a physical world explains everything!)
, via constant computation {unproven}
No, that is what is proven. You don't need platonisme. The existence
of the computations is a theorem. You need only to agree with x and y
arbitrary natural numbers:
0 ≠ (x + 1)
((x + 1) = (y + 1)) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)
x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1
x * 0 = 0
x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x
and yields the universe.
This remains to be seen. The point is that with computationalism, it
*has* to.
Platonia is more real then 3 and 4 D space that we are created from.
Steinhart's theory- we are a data stream-process, that gets promoted
to another hypercomputer. Control-Alt-Delete! Aristotle versus
Plato, Berkeley versus Newton. They both win.
I would say that with comp and QM, Plato marked two times. The current
Aristotle/Plato match is 0:2, in soccer terms.
Of course, that match is only one in a vaster divine cup :)
Bruno
-----Original Message-----
From: LizR <[email protected]>
To: everything-list <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2015 8:57 pm
Subject: Re: The MGA revisited
On 29 March 2015 at 21:04, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]>
wrote:
As you see, I believe in physicalism, not in Platonia. And I have
not yet seen any argument that might lead me to change my mind.
One reason that has been suggested is the "unreasonable
effectiveness" of maths as a description of physics. This is Max
Tegmark's argument for the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis". To
take this to its logical conclusion, if we ever formulate a theory
that (as far as we know) describes everything that exists - a real
live TOE - then, Tegmark would say, what is there that distinguishes
the universe from the, by hypothesis completely accurate,
description? His conclusion is nothing, and since the maths
description is simpler than the observed universe, the scientific
conclusion is that what we observe is a part of a multiverse
containing all outcomes of the TOE (this is a bit like Russell's
TON, with the equations of the TOE as the "almost nothing" that
actually exists) - and that assuming the universe is anything more
than just "What the maths looks like from the inside" is unnecessary
- and untestable - metaphysical speculation.
However we don't have such a TOE as yet, so it's possible it will
turn out to be non-mathematical, in which case Max's argument will
sink without trace.
--
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.
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.
