On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Aug 2017, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/23/2017 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
Refresh my understanding. What it the mechanist hyposthesis? Is it
the same as computationalism?
Yes.
Computationalism = Digital Mechanism = Mechanism = (Yes-Doctor +
Church's Thesis)
Or is it the same as yes-doctor plus reifying arithmetic?
No, it is (yes-doctor + Church's Thesis).
I do not add since long "Arithmetical Realism" because many people
tend to put to much into it, and is actually redundant with
Church's thesis. To just understand Church's thesis automatically
assume we believe in some "essentially undecidable theory", and
this is equiavalent with believing in the right amount of arithmetic.
I will write a post on the detailed starting point of the
mathematics needed to derive physics from "machine's theology".
>From your use, these all seem slightly different to me. It would
be helpful to some firm definitions - not just usage.
I use them as completely equivalent, although in the literature
they are usually stronger. Putnam's functionalism is a version of
Digital Mechanism which assumes a substitition level rather high,
where my version just ask for the existence of a substitution
level. My version is the weaker form possible, and Maudlin, in his
Olympia paper, suggests that if we define mechanism in this way, it
becomes trivial, a bit like Diderot defined "rationalism" by
Descartes' Mechanism.
So a firm definition of Mechanism (in my weak sense) is
1) Church's Thesis (a function from N to N is computable iff it
exists a combinator which computes it)
(There are many variants of this. You can replace also
"combinator" by "game of life pattern", or "fortran program" or "c+
+ program", or "quantum computer" etc.). Note that this asks for
"Arithmetical realism" which is only the believe that the RA axioms
makes "absolute sense", which means basically that not only 17 is
prime, but that this is true independently of me, you, or anyone,
or anything physical. All mathematicians are arithmetical realist.
The fight on realism is in Analysis or set theory, not arithmetic,
especially without induction axiom like with RA. Even a quasi ultra-
finitist like Nelson agrees with RA.
2) Yes-Doctor (= my consciousness is invariant for a digital
physical brain transplant made at some level of description of my
(generalized) brain.
It asserts the existence of that substitution level, and is
equivalent with accepting that we can use classical teleportation
as a mean of travel (UDA step 1).
Important Remark: that definition does not ask for surviving
without a physical brain/machine. That is indeed the object of the
UDA reasoning: showing that we cannot invoke God, or Primary-Matter
to block the immaterialist consequence of Digital Mechanism.
That's where I think some imprecision sneaks in. Yes-doctor was
originally presented as substituting some digitally simulated
nuerons in the brain. But then it was generalized to the whole
brain. But we think with more than our brain. Our body
contributes hormones and afferent and efferent nerve impluses. And
the environment provides stimulation to those nerves and an arena
within which we act. All that is taken for granted in answering
"yes doctor" or teletransporting. So it appears to me that you
implicitly suppose all of this is also digitally replaced.
The reasoning does not depend on the substitution level.
My version of mechanism is much weaker than all the others. I
assume only the existence of a substitution level (such that your
conscious experience would remain invariant for a digital
substitution made at that level).
If you want, you can take the Heinsenberg matrix of the whole
observable physical reality, at the level of the (super)-strings,
with 10^(10^(10^1000)) decimals exact for the complex numbers and
real numbers involved. The thought experience become harder to
imagine, but eventually, it is "the real experience" of the step 7
which we have to take into account, that is "us" confronted to all
computations in the arithmetical reality. The arithmetical reality
emulates all computations, and this includes the matrix above, and
infinitely any variants. It remains simpler to understand the
problem with thought experiements involving "high" level, like the
biochemistry of the body, and understand at step 7 that the
reasoning does not depend on the level chosen.
To kill the consequences of computationalism is not easy. Even
lowering down the level to "infinitely low" level, like using all
decimals of the reals involved would not guaranty the
singularization used in the mind-brain identity used by physicist
when they invoke the physical reality: you will need special
infinities not recovered by the first person indeterminacies. It
will look like Ptolemeaus epycicles. Primary Matter is a sort of
ether. It can only make the theories more difficult. Maybe Primary
Matter exists, but there has never been any evidences, and I would
say that even without Digital mechanism, I am not sure why to
postulate it. Knocking on the table, or smashing Super-speedy
proton cannot serve as evidence for primary matter, only for group
theory and its application in the art of prediction.
With mechanism, the laws of physics have a mathematical origin, and
somehow, they "evolved" from the numbers exchanging piece of
computations, but seen from the 1p views. It works up to now.
I knew that would be your answer, but I think it defeats your
argument. If you have to go to a very low level (e.g. atoms) and a
very broad scope (e.g. the solar system) then you are essentially
digitizing and emulating everything. This includes the physics-of-
everything and the the physics-of-the-mind. Then there is implicit
in this a physical explanation of mind.
But computationalism necessarily embraces a physical explanation
of mind and quite explicitly at that - it would be false if it did
not, since brains and minds are so obviously entangled.
Right.
The difference is that the physical explanation of brains is here
the 'dual' of a machine-psychological one (i.e. a theory of mental
states as emulated in computation). For the theory to be viable,
both explanatory modalities must be the product of observational
filtering from a computational plenitude. The consequence of such
filtering, or self-selection, is that the physical explanation
becomes the extensional infrastructure, if you like, for the
beliefs and actions of the machine-psychological one.
But what if, as seems likely, the "filter" is the consistency and
quasi-classical nature of the physical, and the mental can only
exist within that physics?
Then Mechanism is false. I just offer a tool test this. Here you
speculate on some "ontological being" playing some role in the
selection of an actuality.
Then the virtuous circle could start with physics as easily as with
thoughts.
The beauty is that it starts from any inductive set with Turing-
universal law. That show at the least an explanation of the origin of
the belief in a physical reality, and its local sharable persistency.
By looking inward, we get the quanta (useful for the testing, but also
the qualia, the sense).
The physical reality is the border of the universal mind (the mind of
the universal Turing machine). But the universal mind has no finite
border, (imagine the Ocean bottom . infinite abyss here and there),
and *that* is only what is apparent for the universal person supported
in sheaves of computations.
The physical is the observable, which is quasi-epistemic already. The
big discovery is the discovery of the universal machine, and its
complex mind.
Let us see if there is any problem in arithmetic before postulating
some mysterious "matter" selecting us from the dream continuum we live
in arithmetic. I think that our normal state of brain, which supports
our mundane state of consciousness requires depth, and a long complex
history, but not all state of consciousness requires it.
Note also that by lowering the substitution level, you make us rarer
in the branch we live on, or perhaps rarer in the multiverse. Lowering
the level could make us into being the white rabbit!
Bruno
Brent
David
If it's a viable explanation within this everything-is-digitized
model then it is a viable explanation in the physicalists model.
And I realize this doesn't preclude a mind explanation of physics -
hence my idea of a virtuous circle of explanations.
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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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.
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.
