On 6/8/2015 4:13 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm.... Let us be precise. That the computation take place in arithmetic is
a
mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA explains only that we cannot
use a
notion of primitive matter for making "more real" some computations in
place of
others. It makes the physics supervening on "all computations in
arithmetic".
But my computer does some computations and not others. So there must be
some sense
in which some computations are real and others aren't. Handwaving that
they're all
there in arithmetic proves too much.
I don't see that. Surely the problem is that it doesn't prove /enough/ - assuming all
computations exist (in some sense) in arithmetic, which I believe is "trivially" true to
most mathematicians, how does this produce physics?
If you're going to use a comp style explanation, your computer isn't defining which
computations are real, it's somehow being generated by all those abstract computations.
And all those abstract computations are also generating all possible instances of my
computer computing all possible computations, plus many others which are not nomologically
possible. So when Bruno says we cannot "use a notion of primitive matter for making "more
real" some computations in place of others" my question becomes, "Ok, what can we use,
because some computations ARE more real than others."
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 [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.
