On 27 Apr 2017, at 09:53, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 27/04/2017 5:40 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Apr 2017, at 13:17, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 26/04/2017 7:13 pm, Bruno Marchal 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 is an epistemological proof, not a proof of a theorem in logic.
Consider how a baby learns about numbers -- they play with blocks
or some such. That how arithmetic is derived from physics.
OK. But in that sense, this is coherent with the idea that the
blocks and the babies appearances will eventually be explained in
term of stable arithmetical dreams (computations seen from the self-
referential view, hypostases).
Number ==> consciousness ==> physical illusion ==> babies + rocks
==> human's notion of numbers.
OK. So this is one of Brent's benign explanatory circles. But where
you start in the loop is a matter of your own preconceptions.
Not preconception, as you will not know my personal take on this. It
the theory I am working on. But it is widely believed, note. Number
are taught in high school, so they already got the correct (among many
equivalent, and assuming mechanism of course) TOE.
I see it as starting from our notion of numbers coming from physical
experience. That does not rule out the other possibilities, but it
is a matter of what accords better with experience.
Exactly. You might read the book by the best philosopher of mind, from
antiquity to today. Anyone serious is aware that there is a serious
problem. It is that problem that mechanism (often strongly associated
with materialism) appears to provide a rational immaterialist theory,
which offers an explanation of the origin of both mind and the
appearance of matter. And of course, on reality, the process of
verification is a non ending process.
Bruno
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.
