On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25 Apr 2017, at 15:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 25/04/2017 7:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 25 Apr 2017, at 03:26, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 4/24/2017 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 23 Apr 2017, at 09:18, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > > > > "Quentin Anciaux": > How can you justify logic from physics if logic is primary to prove > anything? You're building your lower layer upon an higher layer... It's > contradictory. > > # David Finkelstein wrote interesting papers about the "physics of logic" > (and also about "introspective measurements") > > streaming.ictp.trieste.it/preprints/P/68/035.pdf > > > > That is a rather good introduction to quantum logic. Although I disagree > with Putnam and his idea that quantum mechanics makes logic empirical. It > shows that some logic are empirical, but as computationalism illustrates, > there are deep classical logical reason why some logic are empirical, others > are psychological, etc. > > But Finkelstein is always very interesting and clear, it is a pleasure to > disagree with him. Logic is shown empirical here, but only in the > physicalist context. > > > Then why doesn't the application of Occam's razor make computationalism > otiose? > > > You lost me. I don't see why you ask this. Occam's razor suggests we use the > fewer number of assumption. Computationalism use, in fine, only RA, and > computationalism at the metalevel. All physical theories use RA + many > stronger mathematical axioms + some physical axioms. > > > Not at all. Physics does not assume arithmetic or mathematics, it derives > them. > > > Give the proof, then.
It's "vaporware science", just like the first principles that explain emergentism. People allude to these things, but you can never seem to find the relevant article... :) Telmo > Bruno > > > > Physics assumes only an external world to study: it is fundamentally > empirical. Computationalism (or mechanism) assumes arithmetic and an > ontology. Physics has far fewer, and less controversial, assumptions. Occam > would clearly favour physics. > > 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 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. -- 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.
