On 13/10/2015 2:18 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Bruce Kellett
<bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
On 13/10/2015 9:46 am, Jason Resch wrote:
The double-slit experiment is evidence of platonic computation
being responsible for our consciousness, along with many other
properties seen in physics.
Come again? How on earth do you make that out? The double slit
experiment is evidence for quantum superpositions of waves and/or
particles. Nothing to do with consciousness. As for the rest of
physics??????
See Chapter 7 (page 115) and Appendix D page 217 from Russell
Standish's book "Theory of Nothing":
http://swc2.hccs.edu/kindle/theoryofnothing.pdf
In it, Standish shows that the quantum mechanics, including the
Schrodinger equation, can be derived from a few basic assumptions
about observation within an ensemble where all possible conscious
observations exist.
Not really. Russell knew what he needed to get, so made the appropriate
assumptions. Nothing comes from nothing, after all. What is more, he
can't actually get a dynamical theory without assuming the whole of
classical physics. Which could be seen as a bit of a drawback to his theory.
The theory has survived numerous tests, without being
disproven, which is all we can hope for as evidence for any
theory.
Quantum mechanics is a well-tested theory. Computationalism is not.
Computationalism retrodicted quantum mechanics. It was only an
accident of history that quantum mechanics was discovered before
computationalism, but had the reverse occurred, computationalism could
have predicted quantum mechanical effects, even before any direct
evidence for QM had been noticed.
Has computationalism predicted spin? Special relativity? Quantum field
theory? General relativity?
Computationalism can't even get the basic physics right,
What about physics do you think computationalism incorrectly predicts?
It predicts nothing at all about physics. I suggested a few things
above. If computationalism is so good, predict the Balmer series for the
hydrogen atom, the Zeeman effect, or the existence of Hawking radiation.
Even for quantum mechanics, just predict the commutation rules for some
basic quantum operators.
much less explain how the universe came to exist long before
consciousness emerged.
Computationalism is a theory of about consciousness, not a theory
about what exists or doesn't.
Ha, Ha, bloody Ha. So computationalism cannot even say that
consciousness exists! I think that if your theory cannot explain basic
observations about the content of consciousness, then your theory is
lacking some credibility.
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 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.
