> On 11 Apr 2018, at 01:29, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory because > it can’t explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is > > > That has nothing to do with physics being a fundamental theory or not. > > If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the universe > works then it can't be fundamental.
? I don’t see why. That simply does not follow. A theory can be simply incomplete, not advance enough, etc. When a theory systematically misses some important fact, like physics miss consciousness (without adding more magic), we can suspect it to be not fundamental, but that still does not prove it is not. With mechanism, when you will understand the famous step 3, it can be shown that a theory (physics) cannot be fundamental for logic reason, in the cadre of some metaphysical hypothesis. > > > The metaphysical/theological question is the question of reductibility of > physics to another science. > > Metaphysics is not a science, and theology is crap. > > >It seems that you assume Aristotle’s metaphysics [ blah blah blah] > > To hell with the damn idiot ancient Greeks!! > > > Like Aristotle, you confuse [blah blah blah] > > Aristotle like all the ancient Greeks was confused about a great many things, > like where the sun went at night, and yet bizarrely you believe they can give > us insight into solving modern problems in science. It's utterly ridiculous! > > > All what I see, when I observe physicians and their discourses are people > inferring from a finite number of personal but sharable experiences > > And you wouldn't be observing anything without something physical like light. > > > But I see only the numbers > > If you can see pure number show me one, I've always wanted to know where the > number eleven is located. Between 10 and 12. > > > Aristotle’s answer was [blah blah blah] > > I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT ARISTOTLE'S ANSWER WAS!! > > > Plato, and the “mystics”, were those who were skeptical about [BLAH > BLAH] > > I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT PLATO WAS SKEPTICAL ABOUT!! > > > It does not really matter if you use number, or Turing machine (finite > set of quadruplets), or lambda expressions. Anything that you can define > inductively with some laws making the system Turing universal will do. > > If atoms that obey physical laws are organized in certain ways they are > Turing Complete and thus capable of calculating anything that can be > calculated, but you need something to organize and that's why atoms are > needed. And Bruno, that is not an assumption that is an observation, Plato is skeptical of observation. Using observation as a reality criteria is equivalent with assuming Aristotle’s metaphysical axiom. Sorry, that is not my religion. > nobody has ever seed a calculation done by anything except by matter. False. If you are ok with the fact that (3^3) + (4^3) + (5^3) = (6^3) is true or false independently of you verifying this or not, then all computations are executed in arithmetic independently of you verifying the fact or not, and then physics appears as arithmetic seen from some self-referential modes. We don’t see primitive matter either. Its existence is a metaphysical assumption. It has been useful for the progress of physics, but it has put the mind-body problem under the rug for long. You need to take into account that, without magic, a universal number/machine is indeterminate on which computations supports them, and physics becomes a statistics on computations based on self-reference (well handled by Gödel diagonalisation technic). > > > Now, Robinson Arithmetic can count, because [blah blah blah] > > If you know how to get Robinson Arithmetic to count don't tell me about it, > tell a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley and become richer than Mark > Zuckerberg. He uses this implicitly. There would be no computer if the mathematician (Turing) did not discovered them in mathematics, and then in arithmetic. Then to use them relatively to you, you need to implement them relatively to you, but with mechanism, the couple made of you + the computer is distributed in infinitely many computations, and your seeing is an indexical view of arithmetic from inside arithmetic. You tap like if you knew that there is a PRIMARY physical universe, but there are no evidence at all for that idea, and the known facts today put this in doubt. It certainly impossible once we assume digital indexical mechanism, which you will understand when you understand the step 3 of the UD “paradox”. > > > You are even the only authentic practicer of indexical computationalism > in this list (that I know of). Perhaps Hal Finney? > > I still don't know what "indexical computationalism" is except that its yet > another of your made up buzz words, when I Google it all I get is some of > your very recent posts to this very list; but I must say being compared to > Hal Finney I consider to be a very high complement. You still don’t know? That is explained in many posts, and at the start of all my papers on this subject. I just don’t believe you. I have added “indexical” just to make clear that I am not using the begavioriste definition you gave of computationalism. Indexical mechanism is the theological assumption that we can remain alive and conscious when getting a digital brain digital transplant. > > > I guess that what stuck you in the 3d step is only your big ego, > > So you think the problem is my big ego, hmm, well there are 2 possibilities: > > 1) I know you made a enormous breakthrough but I refuse to publicly say so > because I don't want to admit anyone is smarter than me. > > 2) I don't understand how anybody with half a brain could think saying "THE > first person" would uniquely specify one and only one thing if "THE first > person" duplicating machines are available. But we have explain you why this is not what the duplicated people can feel, unless you add some telepathic connection between the duplicated people, and then it is enough to remind you that the question was about that feeling, and a kindergarten calculation gives the results. > > I'll let others decide which of the two is true.. > > > you keep confusing physics and metaphysics, like Aristotle, > > > Aristotle didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and neither did > Plato. Why do you keep talking about these ignoramuses?! Because Plato and Aristotle provided the two basic different way to conceive Reality, and since 1500 years, we use the metaphysics of Aristotle, which physics the fundamental science. But the evidences obtained today, both in theoretical psychology/computer science and in physics is forcing us to change our mind on this, and we have to backtrack to Plato’s (and Pythagorus) immaterialist conception of nature and mind. Bruno > > John K Clark > > > > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
