On 18/10/2015 8:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
But that is what you say. And you have said it many times.
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.
You say that conscious beings are emulated infinitely often in
arithmetic. It is strange that all such conscious objects that have ever
been observed subsist on a physical substrate -- the evidence is always
that consciousness supervenes on the physical. Just as physical beings
that are conscious are emulated infinitely often in arithmetic, then so
also are conscious beings who are not physical, but who can interface to
the physical world we inhabit -- through disembodied voices, spirit
writing, interfacing to the internet and sending emails -- in an
infinity of different ways, in fact. So if these beings are emulated in
arithmetic just as often as embodied physical beings are, why do we not
commonly encounter such beings?
As has been said before, your account of existence does not explain our
experience, since it does not explain why we do not see these things, as
we should, if consciousness is more fundamental than the physical.
Science must go by the evidence, and the evidence is all against you.
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.
You have not solved the mind-body problem because you have not explained
why we do not observe disembodied minds. You have not explained quantum
mechanics -- that is your standard 'dog = cat' argument. You notice a
superficial similarity and then claim identity. Science requires you to
do a bit better than this.
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.
