Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Apr 2015, at 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I don't think that your arguments that consciousness cannot be
understood in terms of physical supervenience are very convincing. At
all the crucial points you simply appeal to the computationalist
hypothesis -- your argument is, at heart, circular.
At which line of the proof? Comp (even just the Church-thesis) assumes
arithmetical realism only, not plato's theology. This means that 2+2=4
is independent of me and you.
You build quite a lot into the comp hypothesis. If it is, as you said
above, just the statement that the (human) brain is Turing emulable,
then no assumption of arithmetical realism is involved. 2+2=4 can be
true independent of me and you without assuming numbers have a real
independent platonic existence. Arithmetic might not be fully
axiomatizable (because of Goedel), but an axiomatized version is plenty
rich enough to cope with everyday things.
It does not mean that a material galaxy
does not also exist independently of me. For this I provide a proof or
argument.
I haven't seen any proof of arithmetical realism.
And it does not proof that material galaxies don't exist, but
that it cannot be related with the conscious event of seeing some galaxy
through a telescope. It shows that assuming matter is useless to explain
the appearance of matter, once we assume comp.
So don't assume comp. The the appearance of galaxies tells us something
about the universe in which we live -- a universe explained by matter
and related concepts.
>> So prime numbers might exist_{math}, but they do not exist_{phys}.
>
> Sure. I have not verified, but I do think the universal machine would
> say the same. Physical is a sophisticated internal view of arithmetic/
> There still might be too much much white rabbits, but prime numbers
> are not of the type "observable" there.
I think this claim needs some backing up. You have to actually derive
at least some basic physical laws from your UD.
That is done, and sum up in the second part of the sane04 paper, but it
assumes some "maturity" in mathematical logic. Have you read it. I have
already deduce the or a quantum logic of the observable.
I have not read your paper because, as yet you have not given me any
reason to believe that I would find it interesting. Deducing some
quantum logic is not much of an achievement. What about an actual
physical law? Schroedinger's equation? Conservation of momentum? The
Coulomb force law?
Pointing to prime numbers is not enough.
Please, read the papers and the publication. It has been 30 years of
work. I have defend this without any problem as a PhD in computer
science. It modest, and radical only for people having faith in
primitive matter (a metaphysical hypothesis NOT sustain by any facts).
I think it is your metaphysical hypothesis that is not sustained by any
facts. Physics has accumulated quite an impressive basis of explained
facts over the years.
If you have a theory how a physical universe can make some machine
dreams more real that their dream emulated by arithmetic, I am all ears?
The physical universe, described by universal physical laws, can do that
without producing white rabbit miracles. The dreams emulated by
arithmetic are, at the moment, no better than opium-induced fantasies.
Bruce
--
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.
