On 6/13/2016 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jun 2016, at 23:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
William S. Cooper, "The Origin of Reason" makes an argument that
mathematics is a way of brains thinking about things that was found
by evolution, just like mobility, metabolism, reproduction,...and a
lot of other functions. Bruno doesn't like that story though
because it means mathematics only exists as instantiated in brains.
It is not a question of liking this or not. It is just that Cooper,
and many contemporaries, assumed some physical universe, and that
this assumption put the mind-body problem under the rug. It is like
saying God made it. They don't push enough their own Darwinian logic.
That's begging the question. You assume arithmetic; which sweeps the
mind-body problem under the rug by making the "body" part hard.
Everybody starts by assuming something. Assuming physics and
providing an evolution based account of the development of mind and
minds development of arithmetic is just as legitimate as starting
with arithmetic and trying to derive matter and mind.
I should not have said that Cooper put the mind-body problem under the
rug by assuming the physical universe (and a primary one by default).
I should have said that this just don't work when we assume Mechanism,
and that QM confirms mechanism, not materialism.
I assume arithmetic, but everyone does. What axioms of Robinson
Arithmetic are you disagreeing with?
Why would I disagree with them? They're axioms.
Then I get the body problem, but I solved it, in the sense that I show
that Arithmetic (+ Mechanism) implies physics (the body) is reduced to
statistics on infinitely many computations,
But it doesn't imply that in the sense of logical entailment. Within
arithmetic+mechanism you don't even have a derivation of matter. It
only "implies" it in the sense that "If my theory is going to work it
must be true that...."
with a measure given by the logic of some self-referential modalities,
imposed by UDA and its translation in arithmetic, and we get quantum
logic. I think it is the first explanation of where physics and the
quantum come from. may be it is wrong, but that remains to be verified.
And where is this spelled out?
Brent
If Mechanism is true, we just cannot assume any particular universal
system, including physical one. That gives them ad hoc non Turing
emulable role, and hides the necessary non Turing emulable part of
physics.
Now, if you have a better theory of mind than digital mechanism, let
me know. But with mechanism we have indeed that body problem, but also
the means to solve it, and this satisfy my interest in the origin of
the physical (or of its appearance).
Yet, even without Digital Mechanism, I would not be happy with
assuming a primary physical universe, because that is like giving an
answer before formulating a problem. But, as I said, once we assume
mechanism, it is not a matter of choice. You might reread UDA, and I
mean the 7 steps, and then I can better explain the translation of the
UDA in the arithmetical language, and the relation with the RA, and
also with PA and other Löbian machines.
Bruno
Brent
--
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 https://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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
