On 3/8/2018 7:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 7 Mar 2018, at 15:24, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/5/2018 11:49 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:37 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> 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?
They recognize that their theory doesn't account for it. Tegmark makes
some anthropic speculations. Bruno just says, 'I claim nothing, except
that mechanism and materialism are incompatible, and that the mind-body
problem is reduced into deriving physics from the “material” variants of
machine’s ideal rational believability/justifiability.' It's not at all
clear to me that "reduced" in the appropriate verb...as though it is
simpler or more fundamental. Even if you accept his step 7 it has only
"reduced" the problem to explaining the existence of physics and this
particular physics, from the assumption of arithmetic and the UD.
It's my view that it may be simpler to explain physics and this physics
and consciousness from physics. So I could say the mind-body problem
has been reduced to explaining consciousness from physics...not even
necessarily fundamental physics.
It is the hard part of the matter problem, when we understand that with
mechanism, the everything is no more that the sigma_1 arithmetical reality,
which I think everyone believe in, except the ultra-intuitionist.
Brent seemed to have understood this once, but seems to forget it recently
apparently.
If someone believe in a primal physical universe *and* in the survive of
consciousness through the digital transformation, it is up to them to explain
how the primal universe (and what is it?) acts on arithmetic for making some
computations seems more real than others.
I claim nothing, except that mechanism and materialism are incompatible, and
that the mind-body problem is reduced into deriving physics from the “material”
variants of machine’s ideal rational believability/justifiability.
Or why fewer than all arithmetical relations are realized in physics.
Brent
And then it works at the propositional level, so we can say that today, we have
not yet detected any evidence for a primal universe through our observation of
nature.
Let us encourage the pursue of the testing, simply.
Bruno
--
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.
