On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 8/27/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think it is more pleasing when you can build the virtuous circle
of explanations out of simple ideas that we hardly doubt at the
start, like 2 * 12 = 24. And then, the point is that we have to do
that, when we take Mechanism seriously enough. We are back to
Pythagoras, but with the discovery of the universal machine and its
quantum echo, and a mathematically precise theology, containing
physics, making it testable.
But you're still trying to make arithmetic the really really primary;
It is a consequence of Digital Mechanism. The "creative bomb" is
inside Arithmetic, and it is a terrible child, born with 8
incompatible views on reality. (p, Bp, Bp&p, ...).
whereas from the virtuous circle perspective it is the product of
sapient thought.
There is no choice, or you put the difficulties in the (Turing)-
oracle, and miss/hide that we can do the test.
Sapient thought is in the universal number relations (we *assume*
mechanism, because it is the working hypothesis).
Physics is not a problem. Physicalist metaphysics is a problem,
when we assume Mechanism. But apparently, Mechanism explains it by
showing that if true, the physical reality is in the head of all
universal machine or number, and that can be tested.
But the universal machine can only have a "head" in a certain kind
of physical world...
A universal machine can have a "head" in *many* kind of universal
machine dream, or with respect to many sort of universal entity.
Mechanism assures there is a real "hardware" which is the result of
the FPI on all computations going through "my state".
That's why we can test the idea. I want just illustrate that we can do
theology with the scientific attitude/mind.
on which will via evolution inevitably produce mind.
The human terrestrial mind, yes, but my question concerns the origin
of all this, and the why and how of consciousness. Mathematical logic
+ computability provides the laws of thought (Boole) and the laws of
mind (Boolos, ...) and the invariance of consciousness principle
(which is how I define the weak Mechanist assumption) leads to a
measure problem on the computations "seen-from-inside". An ontological
commitment, be it on a God, or a Thing, cannot be used to demotivate
the search for a solution of that measure problem.
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.
