On 22 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/22/2017 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 8/21/2017 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem with everythingism is that one doesn't experience
everything.
Indeed. But that is a very general problem, and you could say
"the problem with physicalism is that we don't experience primary
matter, nor the whole physical reality.
But that's not a problem for physicalism.
Then it is not a problem for any "everything theory". Physicalism
included. Or explain better why it would be a problem for
"everythingism".
It's a problem for your version of everythingism, because you claim
to invert psychology and physics, i.e. to derive physics from from
psychology.
OK. But we use the computationalist hypothesis, and so psychology is
already derived from (3p) arithmetic.
But psychology only includes what is experienced.
That is a reductionist conception of psychology. I avoid this by using
"theology" or "metaphysics" instead. This includes not just what is
experienced, but also the Truth or Reality making this possible.
Precisely, with computationalism, we need only (and later we can see
that we cannot add anything more) the arithmetical reality. You seem
to forget that we assume also that 2+2=4.
Physics is only available through 1p experience, but only in our
context where the 1p experience are a modality of self-reference among
8 other one.
So this entails that everything is experienced or derived from
experience.
Which actually would please to some people, and can make sense with
computationalism. You need only to put arithmetic in the mind of God,
and everything is derived from the mind of God. I think that this is
an over-use of God, and the relation between God and arithmetical
truth might be more subtle, so I prefer to assume, like all
scientists, that 2+2=4, but people are free to translate this by "God
thinks that 2+2=4".
Anyway, the point is that mechanism cannot work with physicalism at
all. Even if it happens that the only way to hunt all white rabbits
out is to have a *unique* physical verse (universe, multiverse), if
mechanism is true, you will have to derive that unique verse from
arithmetic, without invoking primary matter, and so the reversal is
preserved. Or you need to explain the role of that primary matter in
consciousness, but not by invoking it to just stop the derivation from
arithmetic (because that is the creationist mode of pseudo-science).
I am not someone proposing any new theory. I am someone showing that
the current materialist metaphysics just can't work with the Mechanist
hypothesis. Then I show this constructively and how to derive physics
from the metaphysics that any machine can find by looking inward, and
it works. So mechanism is the only theory which works today, without
placing the first person under the rug.
And what is nice, is that the main shape of that theory has been
intuited in Pythagoras, Plato, the Vedas, well, most mystics seem to
have had some glimpse that the machine clarifies in all details.
Bruno
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.
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.
