Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jul 2015, at 02:34, Bruce Kellett wrote:
In the context of the present discussion, I would say that UDA+MGA
does not entail immaterialism.
Logically no. Episitemologically, yes. Primitive matter becomes a
phlogiston or ether sort of thing. We cannot detect it, we cannot use
it, we cannot related to any experience in physics, etc. yes, logically
we can still believe in it. I have never pretended the contrary. (I
admit that in some text, I might be quick on this).
My point is that whatever metaphysical stance you take, the physical
universe exists, and our experience of it is the basis of all our knowledge.
It is quite possible to accept primary physicality and interpret the
universe in a pancomputationalist framework.
No. This does not work. Everything cannot be computable, once we are
turing emulable.
I have never understood why you say this. Given that the world is
explicable in terms of regular physical laws, then it is computable.
Unitary evolution of the wave function is a prime example of this. The
only problem might be that that laws of physics do not necessarily give
the boundary values. But multiverse models eliminate even this difficulty.
Consciousness supervenes on the physical brain, or physical computer if
required. In either case, it obeys regular laws, so is computable. If
you interpretation of the UDA leads to non-computability, then that
itself is a strong argument against comp because it would imply that
some behaviour in the universe is not law like.
The universe is then understood in terms of computations, but these
are a consequence, secondary and not primary.
That seems self-contradictory to me. If computations are secondary, why
explain the universe in term of them?
Any physical model is secondary, yet we routinely explain things in
terms of such models.
Computation is a purely mathematical, even arithmetical notion. Without
giving a theory which would be able to just give a physical definition
of computation (not using the arithmetical one) I can not make sense of
your proposition.
I don't know why you think that a separate physical definition would be
necessary. Mathematics is derived from physics, and so is computation.
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.
