On 03 Jul 2015, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/3/2015 8:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jul 2015, at 14:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
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,
I agree.
and our experience of it is the basis of all our knowledge.
I disagree. I mean that a lot of our human knowledge comes from the
physical reality, but I do think that a lot of our knowledge comes
also from the mathematical reality, notably through the physical
implementation of universal machine, which can explore the
mathematical reality.
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.
Yes, but multiverse and multidreams introduce the FPI, which adds
an element on non computability in the predictions.
Indeed, the problem is that intuitively, with computationalism,
that non-computability might be too much great, and predicts white
noise our aberrant histories. Then computer science shows that
there are theoretical constraints, like self-referental correctness
which put big constraints, and so computationalism is not (yet)
refuted.
Consciousness supervenes on the physical brain, or physical
computer if required.
That is shown impossible, unless you redefine "brain" by the
quotient equivalence of all computations going through my actual
state.
In either case, it obeys regular laws, so is computable.
Above the substitution level. I cannot predict all the details, due
to either the Heisenberg limit, or the comp limit (wich might be
the same, or not).
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.
Yes, but it can still be no more than the non predictability near
the Heizenberg limit.
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.
Keep in mind that I am interested in the mind-body relation.
Computationalism suggest the brain is a machine, and in that case
it becomes both a sort of theory and an object of the theory.
If you don't commit yourself ontologically in favor of a primitive
universe, I don't see why you could have any problem with what I
deduce from comp.
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.
Mathematics is not derived from physics, and physicists assumes
some amount of mathematics.
Or they learned from experience in the school of natural selection.
No probem.
Human mathematician might come in a big part from the physical
world, but the object of mathematics is not physical. With comp,
the object of mathematics, and physics (the science), are creation
of the mind of universal machine(s). Then the consequence is that
the very object of physics emerge from the universal machines
relations in arithmetic. An infinity of them, by the FPI.
In the theory logic +
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
there is no physical assumptions.
I'm glad to hear you say that. In the past you've asserted that Ey
means something named y exists.
?
Once formal, "E" is just the usual first order logic quantifier,
accompanied, or not, by the usual standard interpretation (N, +, *),
Church thesis, at the meta-level.
"Ex(x +y = z)" can be interpreted by "it exists a number n such that n
+ y = z". It makes sense (true or false) for any choice of y and z.
Bruno
Brent
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.
