On 26 May 2015, at 00:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/25/2015 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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?
?? I don't think Karl Benz made any part of the first car from hemp
and he ran it on alcohol and benzene.
Henry Ford, as an experiment, made car with a body of plastic from
soy beans, but not hemp.
References? This contradicts all my own information sources.
Bruno
Brent
--
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.
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 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.
