On 16 Oct 2015, at 04:18, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 16/10/2015 12:53 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
> wrote:
Two different meanings of the word 'exist'. Physical existence
relates to physical objects; mathematical 'existence' relates to
mathematical ideas.
If you think these are the same thing, then show me the conscious
being that exists independently of any physical substrate. The fact
that you appear unable to do this, and no-one else has ever done it
either, is overwhelming evidence that no such non-physical
conscious beings exist.
Until you can point to a difference that makes a difference,
between physical existence and mathematical existence,
and no-one else has ever done it either, I see no reason to accept
that "physical existence" is somehow more special, or more capable
than mathematical existence.
That particular difference does make a difference. Physical
existence refers to objects of the physical world: mathematical
'existence' refers to mathematical ideas that 'exist' only in
Patonia. Such platonic objects cannot be touched, kicked, or
otherwise manipulated except insofar as physical objects might be
taken to resemble them. If a calculation in platonia can produce
consciousness, then show me the conscious being that is independent
of any physical substrate.
I will allow you to provide the necessary interface between the
platonic and the physical, so that that conscious being can
communicate with us mere mortals. Such an interface must be possible
in your theory (though not in mine) because you claim that the
physical is produced by the platonic objects.
To say that the physical is produced by the platonic object is an
aristotelian, and a bit straw-man, way to sum up.
It is more correct to say that there is no production of the physical,
but an experience of it, sharable by many universal numbers relatively
emulated by other universal numbers. that experience of physical
realities, emerges from the first person indeterminacy by the subjects
which are emulated infinitely often in the arithmetical reality, for
which you can take the usual (N, +, *) structure (used when you
defined most concept in the mathematics used in physics). If that
mathematics was not real/kicking-back, physicists would not use them.
Advantage? The theory of everything is crazily simple, already known
by everyone having the primary school diploma, and, and that is the
key point, it solves the mind-body problem. Not only person are not
eliminated, but that notion is the building block to get both
consciousness and matter. It provides also a rational explanation of
the mystical discourse, notably by providing a transparent
interpretation of the neopythagorean and neoplatonist accounts of God,
Intellect, Soul, and Matter. And up to now, it fits the data, and
explain also the quantum weirdness, which becomes the norm in that
computationalist theory.
Bruno
Get to it.
Otherwise this conversation has become repetitive and pointless.
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.
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.
