On 08 Apr 2015, at 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Apr 2015, at 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I understand what you are claiming, but I do not agree with it.
The primary physical universe certainly exists,
Then computationalism is false. But what are your evidence for a
*primary* physical universe. That is an axiom by Aristotle, and I
believe animals are hard-wired to make some extrapolation here (for
not doubting the prey and the predators), but there are no
scientific evidence for a *primary* physical object.
There is no scientific evidence for a universal dovetailer either.
We don't need evidence here. The existence of the universal
dovetailer, and of all its finite pieces of executions is already a
theorem of very elementary arithmetic. Those things exist in the same
sense that prime number exist.
Perhaps you meant its existence in a physical universe. But we don't
know if there is a physical universe, and the point, to sum up, is
that it will be easier to explain the *appearance* of a physical
universe to the entities in arithmetic, than to explain the appearance
of arithmetic to physical beings. But the UDA go farer. It shows that
if we assume the brain function like a (natural) machine, then we have
no choice (unless adding some amount of magic).
And so far there is no evidence that it can produce anything like
the physical universe we observe.
This shows you are still not reading the work with the necessary
attention. There are evidences, of different type. I predict the many
worlds appearance a long time before reading Everett and understanding
that QM gives some evidence for computationalism (for which evidences
also exists). Then the math extract a quantum logic exactly where it
must appear.
Primary physicality is a lot simpler. Occam's razor to the fore....
Not at all. It assumes a primary physical reality, a mathemaytical
reality, some starnge relation between math and physcis, and between
mind and physics. The TOE extracted from computationalism assume only
elementary arithmetic (or Turing equivalent).
The UD works a bit on the first execution, then a bit on the second
execution, and then comes back on the first, then the second, then
the third, and then come back to the first, etc.
In that way, the UD executes all computations, including all those
who never stop.
Yes, I had misread how that works. But who wrote the programs it
executes? Who wrote the scheduler?
Let us say God.
But with computationalism, God needs only to create the natural
numbers, and addition, and multiplication.
With physicalism God needs to create a physical universe, the
psychological universe, the mathematics, the link between, and the UDA
shows you need actual infinities to make the binding. Keep in mind
that the goal is to explain where the physical *and* psychological
laws come from, and what are their relations.
Seems a lot simpler to have a primary physical universe. Then all
you have to do is explore it.
No problem if that is your goal, but the goal in this list is to
figure out what reality can be, and get a deeper understanding how and
why all this exists at all, and how consciousness is related to
physicalness.
The main point is that for a physical universe to exists in some
primary form, you have to abandon the idea that a brain is Turing
emulable.
May be you are not interested in the mind-body problem, but that
problem is complex, and with comp, to solve it, there is no choice
other than abandoning Aristotle theology (used by anti-theist and most
muslim and christians, and some others) and come back to Plato's
theology, where the physical emerges, or even is a sort of illusion,
from arithmetic through the mind of the universal machine.
Universal machine have a crazily interesting platonist theology, which
is 99,999% pure mathematics, including physics, and so is testable,
and that is the main point. Up to now, the tests confirm it.
I am not proposing any new theory. I shows results verified by
courageous people who just took the time to study the points with some
care. That took years. No one doubt that such results can seem
shocking for Aristotelian believers (still a vast majority of
scientists and believers), as it extends Everett to arithmetic and
eventually forces us to come back to Pythagorus' and Plato's type of
conception of reality.
But that is the scientific adventure: we cannot put the conceptual
problems (like the mind-body) under the rug for ever, and some time we
must revised our most fundamental belief.
I love as much as you the physical universe, and I find nice that its
roots and foundation are purely arithmetical. Matter is no more a
primitive, but that makes it even more "solid", as you can derive its
appearance and stability (hopefully) from elementary arithmetic, which
is the thing I doubt the less.
Bruno
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.
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.
