On 4/24/2017 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2017, at 13:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 23/04/2017 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
It's you who's begging the question, first define what is a
computation with physics first, without relying on abstract
mathematical notion.
A computation with physics is what is happening in the computer I am
currently working on. I can describe this in mathematical notation if
you wish, but the process is not the notation. Any process that takes
input and produces output is a computation. All physical objects do
this. And physical objects do not know any mathematics.
You assume that there are primary physical object.
Bruce's post refers to physical objects (one of which he perceives
immediately), but nothing he says depends on the physical objects being
"primary". In fact I'm not even sure what "primary" means in this
context. Is it simply the ontology of any theory we adopt? Or is it
the bottom of some chain of explanation (which I think can be circular)?
That is not an assumption in physics, but in metaphysics, and it is
incompatible with digital mechanism,
Sure, if "digital mechanism" is the assumption that everything is made
of computations.
for reasons which have already been explained, but which can be sum up
in: what role does the primary character of matter plays in a physical
computation to make it supporting consciousness? The usual answer
(like the one given by Peter Jone), like "to make it real", is
equivalent with "God invocation in an explanation".
The usual answer has the advantage of agreeing with the evidence that
(1) some things are real and some aren't and (2) unlike "God did it" it
does NOT posit an explanation where none is known.
Mechanism is simpler. You are right when you say that the process is
not the notation, but the math shows that the process is in the truth
relating the "notations", or the "information" or the numbers. Such
truth are NOT notations, they are arithmetical facts, which are
presupposed to be true in every corner of physics.
No, they are not. Arithmetical facts are facts only in arithmetic -
whether they are facts in physics depends on the mapping and
interpretation, e.g. If there are two people on the tennis team and
there are two people on the chess team, there are not necessarily four
people at a meeting to the chess and tennis teams.
So, once we have to assume them, why assuming more, given that it only
makes the mind-body problem unsolvable?
How do you know it makes the problem unsolvable? Maybe you've mistaken
the problem?
You must understand that we know today that the arithmetical truth is
beyond all system of "notation + effective relation between the notation".
Because we postulate the natural numbers as infinite.
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.
