On 18 May 2015, at 02:31, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 17 May 2015 at 11:44, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] I can see that computationalism
might well have difficulties
accommodating a gradual evolutionary understanding of almost
anything -- after all, the dovetailer is there in Platonia
before anything physical ever appears. So how can
consciousness
evolve gradually?
This is the tired old misunderstanding of the concept of a block
universe. It's as though Minkowski never existed.
OK. Explain to me exactly how the block universe ideas work out in
Platonia.
I thought I saw an answer by Liz, but don't find it.
I am not sure that the "block physical universe" ideas work out in
Platonia, although block physical multiverse appearance might be
explainable by the rather canonical "all computations", which is
offered once we agree that 2+2 = 4, or any theorem of RA, is true
independently of him/her/it.
Of course, it is a poisonous gift, as it leads to the necessary
search, for the computationalist, of a measure on the border of the
sigma_1 reality.
It is long to explain, but you might appreciate shortcuts, as the
sigma_1 arithmetical reality emulates all rational approximations of
physical equations, and so, abstracting from the (comp) measure
problem temporarily, you can make sense of relative local block
universe in that reality, as that part of the arithmetical reality
mimics the physicists block universe or universes (perhaps only
locally too).
Of course such shortcuts might not have the right measure, and so we
need to use a vaster net.
My point is that if our brains or bodies are Turing emulable then they
are Turing emulated in a small part of the arithmetical reality. The
first person points of view gives an internal perspective which is
much complex, in fact of unboundable complexity, but with important
invariants too.
In the technic parts I exploit important relations between the sigma_1
truth, the sigma_1 provable and the (with CT) intuitively computable.
I can explain, if you want, but my feeling is that you don't like the
idea (that the aristotelian materialist dogma can be doubted), nor
does it seems you are ready to involve in more of computer science.
But if you don't study the work, you should try to not criticize it
from personal taste only. I can't pretend liking all consequences of
comp, but that is another topic. Science is NOT wishful thinking, a
priori.
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.
