On 4/27/2017 9:21 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2017-04-27 18:17 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>:
On 4/27/2017 12:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If there is a primary physical reality, you have to explain
how it drives the arithmetical consciousness flux. But how
could it do that? If it does it in a digitally simulable way,
it cannot work (because that is done in arithmetic too)
We've just been through (again) finding there is no contradiction
between physics and arithmetic. Your answer seems to be that
physics can be an illusion of digital thought, therefore primary
physics is otiose. But thought can't be a consequence of physics
because....well you just don't see how it could be.
Thought *can be* a consequence of physics *but not* in a
computationalist setting, as in computationalism, though are the
result of computations which are not physical object.
I don't see any problem with computationalism being false... but if it
is true, then to predict correctly your next state, you should have to
take into account the infinity of computations computing your current
state to have a measure on your next states...
In QM you take the current state into account by a finite description.
The idea that there are an infinity of computations is of no use since
that doesn't tell you anything about what it would mean to "take account
of them".
If you restrict computations by "physically instantiated in this
universe"... well it's not computationalism...
But it's a lot more useful - and testable.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
