On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.
Bruno, Russell, Tegmark and others tend to concern themselves a lot
with why our experience of reality looks like it does on the face of
everythingism. That is precisely the "hard part", no?
> 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?
Ok, me too. I feel that lack of moderation on the list makes it
difficult -- although I am not advocating it.
It's hard to talk over certain megaphones, and I think many give up.
> 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 am appealing to logic, because I am claiming that we must discard
scenarios where the arrow of complexity is reversed. That is to say: a
complex phenomena entailing an even more complex entity than what is
> 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.
No, but there is a logic contradiction in no mutations ever occurring,
unless you can provide an alternative theory to natural selection that
does not revert the arrow of complexity.
> 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.
I would say that it really depends on weather QM is epistemic or
ontic, as you say above. Or: everythingism allows for an entity that
fits Anselm's argument.
> 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 email@example.com.
> 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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.