On 5/5/2017 1:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 May 2017, at 22:35, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/4/2017 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 May 2017, at 17:44, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/3/2017 2:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 May 2017, at 20:21, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/2/2017 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
Not at all. It cannot be because you need to give a role to the
primary matter which is not emulable by the UD, nor FPI-recoverable.
The obvious "role" is that some things exist and some don't. I
don't know anyone who calls this "primary matter", but it's what
is not UD emulable.
To reify something for which we have no evidence, just to avoid a
problem,
You mean something like other worlds, just to make your theory
simpler. I would never accuse you of religious dogma for that.
There is no "other worlds" with computationalism. The ontology
contains only the natural numbers, structured by + and *. The
existence of all computations is a logical consequence of + and *.
They become "dream" by the Digital Mechanist assumption.
Now, adding a "primary physical world" to select some computations
is simply magical thought.
It's not magical thought to say somethings exist and some don't and we
don't know why. That's scientific modesty. Hubris is assuming the
world must satisfy our theories instead of the other way around.
We must first compare the physics given by the statistic on first
person views (given by S4Grz1, or the Z and X logics), and the
physics inferred from the local observation before. If there is a
discrepancy, then we get some evidence for that magic. To bring the
magic to avoid the math and the experimental data, is equivalent as
invoking god to avoid research. Up to now, no discrepancies have
been found. on the contrary, Everett QM confirms the most startling
consequence of computationalism, the *apparent* "many-worlds/dreams".
But Everett only confirms this under the assumptions that
consciousness supervenes on physics.
You can't both deny that premise and cite it as evidence for your theory.
I don't think so. Everett uses only Mechanism.
What exactly is "mechanism"? Is it not that mind supervenes on the brain.
Then, like I do in the though experiences, he consider physical
duplication (in this case made through the terms of the universal
superposition).
The duplication isn't very "physical" it's just the movement of the
state vector so that two possible brain states become (approximately)
orthogonal.
Everett miss that his move forces him to derive the wave itself from
the superposition in arithmetic, and that is the weakness, OK.
Not OK. How does that "forces him to derive the wave itself from the
superposition in arithmetic".
But then he was doing physics, and not mind-body theory. His weakness
is an implicit physicalism, which indeed cannot work without some
derivation of physics from all computations.
is a bit like a pseudo-religious move, like invoking a miracle or
a god. You have to explain more on how that primary matter
succeeds in linking the computational histories with
consciousness. If it is non Turing emulable, I don't see why we
could remain confident in a digital brain transplant.
You're the one that says physics is non-Turing emulable - a
consequence of assuming an infinite number of worlds.
Not "world", or only in some abstract sense. better to say
computation, or dreams (computation + computationalism and the
machine povs).
So it is a consequence of the laws of addition and multiplication,
only. Nowhere is even one world assumed.
Then neither is any world predicted. A rather great failing for a TOE.
Unless there is no "world".
Yet there is duplication of persons who then perceive themselves to be
in different worlds. I think you equivocate. You rely on DeWitt's many
worlds to explain FPI, but then say no world is predicted.
Just computations, and a reality above (which does not need to be more
than the arithmetical reality).
I don't know what "need" means in that context.
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.
