On 6/22/2016 10:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 23/06/2016 3:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:On 21/06/2016 3:14 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote:On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote:The alternative, which Bruno actually suggested once but disowns, is for explanations to form a "virtuous circle" in which everything is explained in terms of other things ultimately forming loops: NUMBERS -> "MACHINE DREAMS" -> PHYSICAL -> HUMANS -> PHYSICS -> NUMBERS I call this "virtuously circular" if it is comprehensive so that everything is somewhere in the circle.The thing about such a loop is that you can start at any point -- for instance, PHYSICAL, HUMANS, PHYSICS, or anywhere else. The question then is whether this actually achieves you anything?Just stop on the simplest theory."Simple" is an undefined term. You might think the integers are simple, I might think that physics is simple. No-one is right in any absolute sense.Why? We can define a theory to be simpler than another if it has less assumptions.The primary criterion for the adequacy of a theory is that the theory be consistent with the data. Simplicity is at best a secondary consideration, and then largely in the eye of the beholder, or the way in which the theory is formulated. It is like the choice of a coordinate system for astronomy -- the calculation of the trajectory for an earth-moon mission is extremely difficult in a coordinate system centred on one of the moons of mars but quite simple in the coordinate system centred on the earth. But the physics is the same whatever the coordinate system. "Simplicity" is a loaded word, a word that should be avoided.When two theories have equal explanatory power, but one has added assumptions, the theory with fewer assumptions is preferred.Ig you can explain QM and consciousness from elementary arithmetic, you make a gain compared to starting from physicalist QM, which assumes Matter, QM (and thus arithmetic, as QM already assumes arithmetic). Well, you should formalize your theory so that we can at least compare.My theory is that the external objective physical world exists, independently of you or me, or even of consciousness. Consciousness is a property of certain forms of matter, and matter achieves those forms, and hence consciousness, by the process of evolution.OK. So your theory asks for an ontological commitment in some Nature or Matter, being independent of us.And your theory requires an ontological commitment to the existence of the integers. You don't actually have fewer ontological assumptions. Who said that the integers are simpler than nature? A number theorist might not agree! Note that the ontology is the integers, not some set of axioms. Axioms are statements that are true of the pre-existing integers, axioms are not ontological statements.The electron is a mathematical object. It has a quantum state that consists of complex/real numbers, bits, etc. To assume the electron is to bring with it the assumption of all the math necessary to describe it (which is a lot):
The /*theory*/ of the electron is a mathematical object, plus an interpretation. If the electron were the mathematical object then it would make no sense to say we have tested the theory. We can only test the theory because it describes and predicts what electrons will do. A test can show the description to be wrong.
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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
