On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/20/2016 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2016, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/19/2016 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Calculation have been defined mathematically, and shown to exist
in elementary arithmetic.
Which is not the same as to exist in the world.
Indeed.
Especially when the world is made by a God in six days.
The question is which is the best to assume when we want to explain
world appearance. But the UDA makes impossible to reify the notion
of physical world and keep mechanism at the same time. So, once we
assume computationalism, we already assume elementary arithmetic,
and we can't assume anything more for the ontology. We can (and
have to) assume more but we can only do that as convenient
epistemological fiction or shortcut. That is why I "model" the
ontology with RA, and the observer as PA. I put already the
induction axioms of PA in PA's epistemology. Wuth UDA, we know that
the physical reality is a psychological first person plural
construct.
But we don't know that. We only know that if the world is a
computation then it appears among the infinite UD computations and
this will include the computations that instantiate consciousness -
because we've assume that.
You have been closer to the genuine understanding some years ago, it
seems to me.
No: the physical reality is not a computation, nor any number of
computations which appears in the UD.
Physics is the FPI calculus by the first person distributed in
infinitely many computations. It is first person universal construct
by all machines relatively to the infinitely many computations below
their substitution level. That is what gives the qZ1* and qX1*
theories, when provided by the introspecting universal machine.
You confuse digital mechanism with digital physicalism, but as I said;
there are not compatible, even if they get close in case you lower the
substitution level up to the entire universe. But if that is the case,
that remain to be proved.
IF I am machine, neither mater nor mind are defined by one
computation. They need all of them, due to the FPI. A priori it
explains nothing as it predicts white rabbits all over the places at
all instants, but computer science shows that this is far from being
the case. the ignorance implcit in the FPI appears to be highly and
non trivially structured.
Bruno
Bruno
Brent
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 [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.
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 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 [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.
