On 24 May 2015, at 11:12, LizR wrote:
The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I
think? (Isn't there something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural
laws remain stable due to symmetry principles, which are simpler
than anything asymmetric (although physics contains some
asymmetries, of course, like matter vs antimatter).
But simplicity is not by itself something which will multiply you
enough. Simplicity is not enough. Then RA can be said to be simple but
is of course quite non symmetrical. (We could take more symmetrical
ontology, but again, I prefer to start from something not related to
physics).
I'm not sure about this "person in an empty room" - surely they
experience all sorts of phenomena that can ultimately be traced to
the laws of physics? An obvious one is the pull of gravity (or lack
thereof).
But I have to admit I can't see how one gets from the UDA to
physics. The notion that physics "falls out of" all the computations
passing through a specific observer moment seems approximately as
difficult to explain as how physics operates if one assumes "primary
materialism" - but of course physics based on primary materialism
comes with the benefit that for 100s of years, people have believed
the ontology to be correct, and they have slowly built up a body of
knowledge on that basis. Hence comp finds itself doubly
disadvantaged in that no one has worked out how it might work in
practice, and also in that most people react with an "argument from
incredulity" because they've been taught that physics is based on
primary materialism.
The point is that "primary materialism", to operate, as to introduce a
brain-mind 3p-1p identity thesis which is not sustainable when we
assume comp.
Then the difference is almost between the difference between ONE
computation does this, and an infinity of computations of measure one
does this.
Except that when we do the math, we inherit the intensional variants
of the G*/G distinction between truth and rational justififiability,
which enrich the psycho and theo - logical part of the picture,
usually ignored or denied.
This is a bit like the situation with cars that run on something
other than petrol, or subcritical nuclear reactors. No one has put
in a century of research to work out how (say) alcohol driven cars
might work, or 50 years of research on how thorium reactors might
work. Or 300 years of thinking on how reality might be derived from
computations.
Well the first three hundred cars run on hemp, and were made of hemp,
and people already asked at that time why using non renewable resource
when renewable one where disposable?
As long as prohibition continue, as long as the prohibitionist are
not put in jail, politics does not exist.
Bruno
--
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.
