Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
Which is merely as thought patterns in the brains of physical beings.
Perhaps you meant its existence in a physical universe. But we don't
know if there is a physical universe,
I think we do know that. Your point, it seems, is merely that this is
not primary, not that it doesn't exist.
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 you haven't explained the appearance of a physical universe in
arithmetic. And the appearance of arithmetic in a physical universe is
trivially easy to explain -- we abstract the numbers from our experience
of objects and of multiple copies of similar objects. No mystery here.
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).
No need for magic: it is all in the physics.
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.
This is all quite trivial, and unimpressive to the physicist. One can
get as much by adding a few random numbers to any mix. Your 'many
worlds' have nothing to do with Everett.
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 relationship between maths and physics is not at all strange or
mysterious. We evolved in a physical world, and postulated numbers and
arithmetic to order our experiences. Once the idea of axiomatization of
arithmetic arose, all the rest followed. It is intimately related to the
physical world because it originated there -- as part of our attempt to
understand and systematize our experience of that physical world.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
