On 3/5/2018 11:49 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:37 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 3/5/2018 9:14 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
"Could" implies a question about possibilities. It's certainly logically
possible that there not be such a disease as leukemia. Is it nomologically
possible?...not as far as we know.
Well I'm not sure it's logically possible, for the reasons that Bruno
already addressed.
Bruno is assuming that everything not contrary to his theory exists
axiomatically...which is assuming the answer.
That is a rather uncharitable way of putting it.
Bruno has discussed his Universal Dovetailer Argument extensively. If
you assume comp and accept the argument, then we are inside of the
dovetailer. The dovetailer is an everything-generator.
That's exactly the problem with everythingism. It predicts all the
stuff we don't see.
Russell
proposes something similar in his book. Isn't the exploration of this
type of idea the original reason for this mailing list? That doesn't
mean that the idea is right, of course, but it does mean that one
should expect to not keep going around in circles without ever
reaching a more sophisticated level of engagement with such theories.
I'd be happy to engage a more sophisticated level. I've suggested
several times points on which Bruno's theory might have something to say
about physics or cognition: For example there is the discussion of
whether QM is epistemic (quantum bayesianism) or ontic (wave-function
realism). There are experiments that seem to show it's ontic, but only
under the assumption that experimenters agree on it...which seems to be
an epistemic condition. Or how about the past hypothesis; does the UD
necessarily imply a universe that in low entropy in the past...or is
that just the definition of "past", in which case one asks why does the
AoT have a consistent direction. And what is the relation of the brain
to the computational processes producing consciousness? Why the delay
in the Gray Walter experiment? Is there really some number of neurons
between platyhelmenthies and homo sapiens that maximizes consciousness?
But why would you suppose that a world in which "Leukemia doesn't exist."
would allow you derive a logical contradiction?
I think such a world would require one to accept something like
creationism as logically consistent. The process of biological
complexification happens by natural selection. Natural selection, by
definition, implies failure modes. It also leads to endless
competitive and exploitative dynamics such as predators, pathogens,
parasites, etc. Avoiding all of these tragedies from the perspective
of human beings would require a designer holding human interests at
heart above everything else. Both the pre-existence of such a designer
and its motivation to helps us above everything else seem nonsensical
to me.
First, you are appealing to biology and physics, not logic. I already
said that nomologically, leukemia was probably necessary. It's just a
possible mutation in bone marrow cells. But there's no/logical
/contradiction in that mutation not occuring. Second, you're straw
manning. I didn' t say anything about "failure modes" not existing. I
said that one particular failure mode could fail to exist. In fact I'd
say the world would be better if even that one little girl had not died
in pain. Let's see you prove that implies a logical contradiction.
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.
